Is the New Testament made up?

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Sherlock-Holmes

No, physics has utility, value.

Potato, potato. Nitpicking on semantics does not alter that fact that physics work, and that physics is an extremely good approximation to observed reality. If it “has utility, value”, it works. If it didn’t work, you could not have typed your postings on this forum, you could not have navigated with GNSS with your car (whether it’s an EV or has an IC engine), and you could not use electricity generated by a nuclear power plant.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Yes I studied these subjects myself. But I do not take our ability to predict a future state of a system to reveal reality, the example of the differing (very different) interpretations of quantum physics proves this.

Having studied physics myself, and having worked professionally within the field for decades, I am no stranger to it. Whether the Copenhagen interpretation or any other interpretations are ones that reflect reality best when you go down to the very nitty gritty details is only of concern to the active research front of QM, cosmology, and mathematical physics.

@Sherlock-Holmes

A clear fact is that we have NO IDEA what reality is, right there science PHYSICS proves that we do not know anything about reality at all, we just kid ourselves we do.

No “knowledge” derived from any religious texts or faiths (to the infinitesimal degree one can call it knowledge, full as is it is of highly subjective and imaginative interpretations) can come even close to rival the level of detail we can describe the world we live in better than the natural sciences can do. That very fact alone tells us a whole lot about the applicability of religion to describing reality.

@Sherlock-Holmes

You are now discussing philosophy though not science. Terms like “work” and “reflect reality” are not in the domain of the natural sciences.

It certainly is within the domain of the sciences. Even though you claim to have studied physics and should now better, it seems like you think the sciences are detached from the real world and empirical data. If physics did not “work” and did not “reflect reality” and empirical data, noone would be interested in hiring and paying scientists to do work in their fields. Last time I checked (looking at my paycheck), employers were very interested in the output of science. So by these empirical data alone, I trust that science do, in fact, reflect reality and describe the world around us in the best possible way we can. But can we do better? Yes, of course, that’s why we still keep doing science. And that’s one of the biggest differences between science and religion, namely that religion stick to bronze age superstitious dogma, while science develops to reflect our still improving knowledge of the world around us.

@Sherlock-Holmes

You guys struggle to hard to always treat every question in theism as being scientific questions and then when that analysis becomes unproductive you interpret that to mean that theism is nonsensical and a delusional.

You can do all sorts of philosophical exercises with religious dogmas, but it all boils down to whether it tells us something about the physical world. No matter how much you want to believe in those myths based on bronze age superstition, it’s not woth one iota of actual knowledge as long as it does not reflect the observable world and empirical data. If it conflicts with empirical data, it is wrong.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Bu the questions in theism are NOTHING TO DO with the natural sciences, if you insist they are then right there you have a belief and one that we do not share.

Actually, the question is whether religion can tell us anything empirically testable at all about our physical world. If it can, fine. If it can not, then its truth value is on the level of myths, faery tales and imagination. So far, I’ve not seen any religiously based arguments that have given us new knowledge about the physical world we live in. So I withhold my belief in religion.

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

A clear fact is that we have NO IDEA what reality is,

How can you assert a deity exists, without any idea what objective reality is?

[CyberLN]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Bu the questions in theism are NOTHING TO DO with the natural sciences,

The questions in theism (not sure what those are) might not, but the answers given in theism do.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Sheldon

@Sherlock-Holmes

You either have no assumptions about reality or you do, wo which is it?

Do you agree some assumptions are more likely true than others? IF you don’t then can you tell if you think my assumption there will be a sunrise tomorrow, is as valid as people’s assumptions about tarot card readings, or astrology?

Very well I will answer your questions and then look forward to you answering my preceding question.

Do you agree some assumptions are more likely true than others? No, I’d never use such phraseology with its attendant implications about probabilities. I would say that some assumptions are more reasonable than others but that all depends upon many things, even other assumptions.

@Sheldon

IF you don’t then can you tell if you think my assumption there will be a sunrise tomorrow, is as valid as people’s assumptions about tarot card readings, or astrology?

I wouldn’t use “valid” either (not nitpicking) because “valid” and “sound” and so on have a precise meaning in logic and so too in logical reasoning. I would use “rationally justifiable” but what are you comparing? the belief the sun will rise with what assumption about tarot cards?

@Sheldon

Now if you agree assumptions are not equally likely to be valid or true, then your point just seems like another false equivalence fallacy, since what you labelled an assumption is supported by overwhelming objective evidence. You can demonstrate none for any deity, or any supernatural claim.

Stating that two things are based on assumptions is not a false equivalence, saying a dime and a quarter are all coins is not untrue, they are. Yes assumptions should be justified, I don’t argue that we can make up any old assumption and that doing so gives it legitimacy.

The past does not guarantee the future either. That the sun has risen thousands of times does not prove that it will rise tomorrow, because nature is rationally intelligible though we can and do extrapolate, we use scientific induction to make claims about the natural world, but don’t call these proofs.

The problem the atheists here have is that they are trying to argue that all claims about reality fall within the realm of science and I do not accept that. If the claims in the New Testament were claims about the natural world then I’d of course compare them with what I know about nature.

But the texts themselves attest to the supernatural, everything’s written in the gospels is - we are told - to be understood in the context of God’s presence and power.

@Sheldon

Facts are things we known or proven to be true, what we know to be true can change in the light of new evidence, if it can change it is not immutable.

No, if something known to be true then it cannot change, if it can change it is not knowledge it is belief.

@Sheldon

So the answer to your post (1) would be, why need we do this if the assumptions we are making are far more reliable than the (objectively) unevidenced hearsay of archaic text derived anonymously from an epoch of extreme ignorance, credulity, and superstition?

The demand for evidence though reflects your scientism, your worldview. The claim Jesus turned water into wine cannot rationally be evaluated scientifically because it was a supernatural act, not an innate event governed by natural laws. This is the atheists problem, they can only turn to science when faced with questions that are not in the domain of science, it is futility.

@Sheldon

Then what’s your problem with atheists being unable to reconcile the unevidenced superstitious hearsay of the gospels, where they are directly at odds with scientific facts, like corpses rising out of their graves after many years below ground and wondering the streets for example?

That’s very simple to answer. The problem is the insistence that reality be at all times consistent with naturalism. Science does not prove that everything is subject to laws of nature, it is a belief nothing more and if you don’t grasp this then I’d say you don’t really understand science at all.

@Sheldon

Are you saying no one knows it to be true that science reveals reality? I can only strongly disagree.

Some might believe that but it is not a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis. It is the adoption of science as the be all and end all of one’s worldview, it is scientism.

@Sheldon

Not you I don’t what? You didn’t answer my question? Do you agree that creationists question scientific facts?

I’m sure some do, but I’m not one if them.

@Sheldon

That’s a lie, a rather silly one as well, as all anyone need do is scroll up. I am simply asserting that assumptions needn’t ALWAYS be unreliable or entirely subjective, they can also be facts based on overwhelming objective evidence, again then… I assume there will be a sunrise tomorrow, and I also assume that people cannot rise from the dead after being buried for many years, and walk around the place, both safe assumptions because there is overwhelming objective evidence that the first does happen every time the earth rotates, and because there is no objective evidence that second is even possible.

The claim X is supported by “overwhelming objective evidence” does not prove that events cannot occur that are inconsistent with that evidence.

This is sheer silliness of all this, trying to use a scientific argument to argue that everything that happens has a scientific explanation. You can’t use science to prove that everything must have a scientific explanation, that supernatural events cannot occur.

You cannot argue against theism by using science any more than you use science to argue good or bad or tasteful paintings. You guys just go around in circles with every thread, take some theistic claim show how it’s inconsistent with science and then (take a leap of faith) go on to conclude that therefore said claim is undoubtedly false.

Vacuous, emperor’s new clothes.

You see what your worldview tells you to see, just as Burke explained in that video clip.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@CyberLN

@Sherlock-Holmes, in earlier posts, you said that the universe was created. Do you consider that a fact or an assumption?

It’s certainly not assumption that’s for sure, its an inference that I elevate to the status of fact just as I do with a host of other claims I call facts.

There is an assumption though which is that the universe is rationally intelligible (as it seems to be) and so that rational intelligibility (arguably a property of the universe) cannot be a consequence of the universe itself but must be a consequence of something else, something entirely different.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Sheldon

Nope, that’s a lie…

Stop Sheldon.

This is the last time I will ask you. Please do not call me a liar. Disagree by all means, show me to be in error by all means, but do not insult me by accusing me of intentionally and willfully making knowingly false statements to further some objective.

[CyberLN]

@Sherlock-Holmes

It’s certainly not assumption that’s for sure, its an inference that I elevate to the status of fact just as I do with a host of other claims I call facts.

Interesting. When you say you’ve elevated your inferences to fact, do you consider them to be fact for you or facts that should be accepted as such by all if they want to be inerrant?

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

No, if something known to be true then it cannot change, if it can change it is not knowledge it is belief.

It is a demonstrable fact that our knowledge changes, as it is also a demonstrable fact that we can be wrong when we think we know something. Thus a fact can cease to be a fact in the light of new evidence, ipso facto facts are not immutable. A belief is simply an acceptance that something exists or is true, so the arbitrary way you are separating knowledge and belief is simply bizarre.

@Sherlock-Holmes

That the sun has risen thousands of times does not prove that it will rise tomorrow,

Correct, which is why it is by definition as assumption, it is also a fact, and a belief, see how they can overlap? Now since you claim it can change that means what we know can change, and you just asserted a fact could not change, bizarre. I don’t know about your scientific credentials, there are others here better placed to evaluate those claims, but your use and grasp of language is poor.

@Sherlock-Holmes

The problem the atheists here have is that they are trying to argue that all claims about reality fall within the realm of science

You keep asserting this, but I have not seen anyone here claim this, maybe I am wrong, and I certainly have never said this.

@Sherlock-Holmes

the texts themselves attest to the supernatural,

That’s a subjective claim, and you would have no objective criteria for disbelieving the legends of Hercules in that case. They are anonymous hearsay claims, from an epoch of extreme ignorance and superstition. Objectively no different to the texts and claims from other religions.

@Sherlock-Holmes

everything’s written in the gospels is - we are told - to be understood in the context of God’s presence and power.

Well it would wouldn’t it.

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

So the answer to your post (1) would be, why need we do this if the assumptions we are making are far more reliable than the (objectively) unevidenced hearsay of archaic text derived anonymously from an epoch of extreme ignorance, credulity, and superstition?

The demand for evidence though reflects your scientism, your worldview.

That is risible, but then scientism is a bs word.

@Sherlock-Holmes

The claim Jesus turned water into wine cannot rationally be evaluated scientifically because it was a supernatural act, not an innate event governed by natural laws. This is the atheists problem, they can only turn to science when faced with questions that are not in the domain of science, it is futility.

This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you are simply making another appeal to mystery, and insisting belief is justified because we can’t come up with any other explanation. The definition of a miracle by the way, is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. The last part is again a straw man fallacy.

@Sherlock-Holmes

That’s very simple to answer. The problem is the insistence that reality be at all times consistent with naturalism.

So a straw man then. When someone demonstrates something else I will believe it exists, until then I withhold belief, I make no assertions about anything beyond the physical material or natural, so it is theists who are violating Occam’s razor here.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Science does not prove that everything is subject to laws of nature,

Straw man fallacy.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Some might believe that but it is not a scientifically falsifiable hypothesis. It is the adoption of science as the be all and end all of one’s worldview, it is scientism.

No, you’re pretending that revealing reality must mean we understand everything about reality, it is a fact that science reveal reality, the rest a straw man argument you’re creating and assigning to atheists.

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

Not you I don’t what? You didn’t answer my question? Do you agree that creationists question scientific facts?

I’m sure some do, but I’m not one if them.

Then you were wrong to assert that a fact is by definition unquestionable. Though I would not categorise creationist arguments as rational of course.

@Sherlock-Holmes

A fact is by definition unquestionable, cannot logically be doubted,

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

That’s a lie, a rather silly one as well, as all anyone need do is scroll up.

The claim X is supported by “overwhelming objective evidence” does not prove that events cannot occur that are inconsistent with that evidence.

Straw man fallacy, and that has nothing to do with this claim, which was a lie…

@Sherlock-Holmes

You have a pathological, irrational dread of admitting that you must make assumptions in order to reason your own worldview, that’s not healthy and it’s not being open minded.

…and again all anyone need do was read the post you were responding to, to see I have no problem at all admitting I make assumptions, you don’t know what my worldview is though, and atheism is not a worldview.

@Sherlock-Holmes

trying to use a scientific argument to argue that everything that happens has a scientific explanation.

I made no such claim.

@Sherlock-Holmes

You cannot argue against theism by using science

Of course you can if the theistic arguments warrant it. This by the way is the very definition of a god of the gaps polemic.

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

Nope, that’s a lie…

Stop Sheldon.

This is the last time I will ask you. Please do not call me a liar.

I didn’t call you a liar, I pointed out a lie, if you don’t lie I will not have to point it out, if it bother you then I suggest you make more effort to make truthful assertions, especially about what others have asserted.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Disagree by all means, show me to be in error by all means, but do not insult me by accusing me of intentionally and willfully making knowingly false statements to further some objective.

Stop lying about what I have said or believe and I will stop pointing it out.

@Sherlock-Holmes

you seem to think all questions can be reduced to questions about the natural world, answered by doing natural science but I strongly disagree.

That was your claim, it is a lie, try not telling people what they seem to think, I know what I think, I don’t need you to tell me and get it wrong. If it bothers you so much then phrase it as a question, though I have explained enough times by now the difference between disbelieving a claim the supernatural is possible, and making a claim that it is impossible.

I can assure you that I find such lies every bit as offensive as you find me pointing them out.

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@Sherlock-Holmes

o you agree some assumptions are more likely true than others? No, I’d never use such phraseology with its attendant implications about probabilities. I would say that some assumptions are more reasonable than others but that all depends upon many things, even other assumptions.

I see that Sherlock is a great fan of Lewis Caroll, I suspect he cosplays as Humpty Dumpty. It is the thread of argumentation he has used all along:

"When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

I know he is the only chew toy we have at the moment but it is impossible to debate with such breathtaking dishonesty.

[Cognostic]

@Sherlock-Holmes

You cannot argue against theism by using science

Ha ha ha ha ha ha … Sure I can.

“What evidence do you have for your God?”

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@CyberLN

Interesting. When you say you’ve elevated your inferences to fact, do you consider them to be fact for you or facts that should be accepted as such by all if they want to be inerrant?

I don’t speak for other people, nor do I care about inerrancy, if I err I hope I’ll discover that and make a correction.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Sheldon

It is a demonstrable fact that our knowledge changes,

Yes but it’s not a demonstrable fact that facts change. Do you promise to not call me a liar going forward? if so I’ll respond to the other points you raised.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

I know he is the only chew toy we have at the moment but it is impossible to debate with such breathtaking dishonesty.

This exemplifies my view too. This “debating forum” is just a sloppy hangout for people to attack anyone and everyone who does not share their faith in atheism. That’s all it is, there’s no debating only accusations and insults.

So please stick to a subject, some thesis and debate that, don’t attack a person, don’t call me “dishonest” what do you expect to achieve by that? is that the atheists way? use insults where intelligence and reasoned discourse is beyond one’s abilities?

[Randomhero1982]

Again, ill add to that… evidence how ‘god’ had any influence over scripture.

At the moment all you have is essentially, “well, my friend said so!”

[Sheldon]

@Sherlock-Holmes

@Sheldon

It is a demonstrable fact that our knowledge changes,

Yes

@Sherlock-Holmes

if something known to be true then it cannot change,

Dear oh dear…

@Sherlock-Holmes

it’s not a demonstrable fact that facts change.

Could you explain what you think the difference is between a fact and knowing something to be true? Maybe this will help:

Fact
noun

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

@Sherlock-Holmes

Do you promise to not call me a liar going forward? if so I’ll respond to the other points you raised.

I’ve not called you a liar, and if you don’t post any lies I will not point them out.

@Sherlock-Holmes

faith in atheism.

You’re not making it easy with porky pies like that whopper.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

Again, ill add to that… evidence how ‘god’ had any influence over scripture.

At the moment all you have is essentially, “well, my friend said so!”

Why do you ask me? in time you’ll understand, in time you’ll grasp how you’ve been misled by scientism and materialism and how these acted as your God. Until then I can no more show you evidence than I can show a blind man what flowers look like, suffice to say, you’ll know it when you see it.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Sheldon

I’ve not called you a liar, and if you don’t post any lies I will not point them out.

Yes you have, why say otherwise is unclear.

[Randomhero1982]

@Sherlock-Holmes

Why do you ask me? in time you’ll understand, in time you’ll grasp how you’ve been misled by scientism and materialism and how these acted as your God. Until then I can no more show you evidence than I can show a blind man what flowers look like, suffice to say, you’ll know it when you see it.

Gotcha, so its bollocks, at least we cleared that up.

[Sherlock-Holmes]

@Randomhero1982

Gotcha, so its bollocks, at least we cleared that up.

Says the man in the silly wizard hat, keep waving your wand, I’m sure you’ll get lucky some day.

[Randomhero1982]

Haha that literally shows just how pathetic you are.

Luck is bollocks, like your make believe friend.