philh

I have to say I dont like the phrase "just a theory" as if theory is a dirty word. Relativity is just a theory, so is atomic theory. As ken Miller the famous Catholic evolutionist points out facts are not superior to theories. it is the other way round. a theory explain a broad set of facts , you may go to a class on atomic theory , not atomic fact. Theories explain things, facts do not. of course theories need facts to check their validity and evolution has that in abundance. Creationsim has no facts.

If theology does not require hard evidence like science does, then we should not have wide confidence that anything it says is true. Our degree of confidence should be related to our degree of evidence , the more evidence we have, the more confident we should be. No evidence should equal no belief. If theists admit their standards of evidence are lower than science then they should admit their degree of confidence should be at least somewhat less than their confidence in scientific statements. To have less evidence but more confidence is utterly absurd. As with regard to pyschology, are we confusing pyschotherapy with pyschology? Pyschology is the "scientific study of mental processes" and is certainly a scientific subject liek any other subject. It does not require lower standards of evidence than other sciences, although its conclusions may be more tentative. Having said that a lot of pyschology is now over lapping with neuro science. In contrast therapy is a treatment which many have questioned the effectiveness of(depending upon the type of therapy) , therapy of any kind is not pyschology.

Ok well you accepted it, but I hope you understand why I cannot . Thast not to say i cannot accept any claim of a super natural event but I need better evidence than your say so, perhaps for the same reason you will not accept every UFO abductee story. May I ask why you dont accpet them?People who claim they have been abducted by aliens show just as much sincerity as you do. If you really have strong evidence take it to Randi and get the $1m , you can donate it to your favourite charity. if you dont have strong enough evidence to win the prize then perhaps well have to let the story go and I hope youll understand why I cant just believe you because you seem sincere. if I saw a man get out of a grave and rise up to heaven , would I be looking for Penn and Teller? You bet i would, our senses can decieve us. Magicians are experts in fooling not just the gullible, but the skeptical too. You might think this doesnt apply to the gospel miracles. But I would reccomend trying to get a copy of two magicians performance of "tricks of the bible" (read more here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_and_Stuart) and "the magic of Jesus", they turn the water into wine, get a virgin pregnant and bring the dead back (as did David Blaine with his butterfly trick as did Steve Shaw with his buried alive trick) . Now Im not saying that a mircale is necessaily a magic trick, but yes we should invesigate that possibility before we believe. Uri Geller's spoon bending convinced a lot of people pyschics were real (including skeptical scientists) until magicians exposed how he really did his "miracles". So yes I would look for Penn and Teller , a skeptical aproach is the only way of filtering out the bullshit. So far when the claim of the supernatural have been presented in front of scientist/maguicians every single one of them without fasil has been shown to be false, I think that says something.

"Something tells me you doubt that Neil Armstrong actually walked on the moon... or that a jet flew into the Pentagon on 9/11. Everything's a conspiracy to you, phil. "Steve's testimony isn't sufficient." Give me a break. Well that somethign whispering in your head (is it the holy ghost) is wrong again. i dont doubt those because we have overhwleming evidence for those evvents. Not just one persons say so, dont you see the difference?

"Wife could have been high on crack cocaine too, eh? Just goes to show some will go to any lengths to explain away a supernatural event. I could have accepted "I don't know, but there must be a reason beyond miracle." The latter is indeed that what I am saying. Youll notice i dont say the event happened the way Penn and teller did it, nor do i say your wife was mistaken, nor do I say you are lying, nor do i say your wife is lying, nor do i say the child was playing with a spare tyre, nor do I say your wife was on drugs , but are any of those impossible? All Im doing is bringing up possibilities, aplying criticial analysis of outrageous clams. You would have us accpet any outrageous claim on somones say so. Ill ask you yet again, do you accept every claim of alien abduction: YES OR NO?

"Some secular sources mentioning Christ's life/death/resurrection: 1) Jewish historian Flavius Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities" (A.D. 93) says James, "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ," was executed in A.D. 62.......etc" 1)Your first source Josephus was born after the death of christ so hes not witness. You are right to say the second passage is a embellished but you dont go far enough , most people think its a forgery. But even if we are not sure about that, there is enough doubt to have it dismissed as any strong evidencce. Even the first passage you mention only describes James the brother of jesus being stoned to death, it doesnt mention anyhting about jesus himself. Some scholars have expressed doubt as to whether or not this Jesus is the same jesus , arguing that the phrase Christ was a later interpretation. Either way Jospehus doesnt mention anything specific about Christ and he wasnt alive at the time anyway. 2) Pliny the Younger, yet again not alive at the time of Christ, not a witness, doesnt count. In fact all he writes about is Christians not Christ himself, no one's doubting there were Christians. What we are doubting is the divinity and resurection of Christ. 3)Tacitus,yet again not alive at the time of Christ, not a witness, doesnt count. Its likely he was just retelling the Christ story as he heard it from Christians. Whatever sourse he did get the story from its obviously second hand as he was writing many decades after the events and Ill stress again wasnt even alive when the supposed events took place. 5) Suetonius , yet again not alive at the time of Christ, not a witness, doesnt count. In fact his comment that the Jews were expelled from Rome becuase of the leadership of Chrestus implies thats hes not even referring to Jesus. After all jesus never went to Rome. 6)Tertullian , yet again not alive at the time of Christ, not a witness, doesnt count.he was also a church leader and so not really a secular source. So out all your evidences we have not one single non christian witness to the events of the gospels. This is your evidence? Youll have to do better than that. I think it would be wise to stop believing in stories without evidence, particularly stories from people who werent even there at the time.

Its a not a trick vehicle, its a normal vehicle but yes with the weight distrubted on one side.The point is its possible without a miracle, thats if it happened at all. My experience in conjuring is that there are many ways to perform the same effect. Maybe your wife didnt run over your child in the first place, after all even she didnt see the event happen. you said Drew was crying, if it was a normal knockk down as you say its unlikely the child would have been crying, more likely they would be unconcscious. In her first estimate she thought she had run over some clothes, maybe that estimate was right in the first place. What we have is a scenario that not only you didnt witness, but also you wife didnt witness, so we actually have no witnesses to this supposed miracle. Whats more likely that your wife pakced the vehicle with weight on one side or she didnt run over the child in the first place or that she ran over her child and the child came back to life? There are plenty of examples of people escaping unharmed when we expect them to be harmed , it happens in skydiving too. To believe these are all miracles rather than having a rationale explanation is just presumption. Im prepared to consider the possibility of a miracle happening if its well documented, I wont believe just because someone said so, would you? i guess you would because after thats the basis of religious belief.

Do you actually have an a point? I fail to see it, so far in your last post you call the video ridiculous without giving any reason why, perhaps becaue its a peice of performance but if you know the underlying mechanics of how this performance works you will understand the importance of the point im making. Just so you get it , there are mechanical ways for a heavy vehaicle to run someone over without them bveing harmed , it does not require a miracle. "I'll bet you know next-to-nothing about the Bible or the Christian faith" Your very presumptious, perhaps having to study it in the original language it was written in counts as nothing, but how are you more qualified than me? Furthermore just because I take an anti Christiian view does not mean I know nothing of Christianity, there are many ex preachers who are just as passionate in their opposition to Christianity as I am, would you make the same bet on them? "You can't even accept the personal testimony as true of a man who almost lost his child? You practically called him a liar." And do you accept the testimony of every ufo abductee ? Do you accept the testimony of every loch ness monster sighting? Do you accep the testimony of those who think world leaders are lizards? I did not call Steve a liar, I said his testimony is not sufficient evidence. if you cant see the difference thats your problem. Any court of law would agree with me, as Steve himself agrees he did not witness the events, it is hearsay evidence and therefore not admisaable. Similarly so are the gospels heresay evidence and therefore they are not admissable either.

"My father-in-law still has that 69 buick. Would you guys be willing to lie down and let me drive over you to prove your point? " Some people have doen this and that is a fact, with much much heavier trucks. I showed you the video of it happening on you tube and you completley ignored it. I guess it didnt fit with your desire to see this as an act of god. Ill also ask you again should we believe every incredible claim we hear? Do you believ iin UFO kidnappings, the loch ness monster ect etc? You havent shown us any evidence of this event happening, you werent even there, your wife said it happened ,she thought she ran over her son, so even in a court that would be excluded as evidence because it is hearsay . Similarly all you evidence for the gospels is also hearsay , I asked you for one non Chrsitian witness to either a) Jesus death b)jesus resurection or c) the martydom of one of Jesus contemporaries for the reason he blieved he saw jesus die on the cross . So far you have provided none. All you have provided is "it says to so in the bible".In fact when it comes to the martyrs we dont even have that. Just like your story with your son, we just have to accept somebody else say so (its not even your say so by your own admission you werent there). If you are studying pyschology you should really check out the pyschology of magic and illusion. All the time magicians perform a trick and thhe audience are impressed, but whats really interesting is that as the time elapses between the audience seeing the trick increases, their recollection of it changes, it mostly grows more fantastical as time progresses, and that could be only a few hours after the trick was performed. The same goes for co called pyschics (who are really just conjurors themselves) . IMPORTANT Not only do conjurors know the audience have false memories of the tricks performed scientists have shown the biological bais for false memory syndrome: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021211083732.htm http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4123031

why dont you watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV2PJ71z85s i think that proves one can be run over by a truck and not be harmed. It does not require a miracle, just an interesting weight ditribution in the truck , soryy about that.

I dont know what you were mistken about , but should we believe any supernatural event just because someone claims it? Randi has seen countless people most of whom are sincere in their belief in their super natural powerws, once they get under controlled conditions in front of sceintists ad magicians their supernaturla powers suddenly dry up. This happens every time without exception. No one has ever one the prize.There is no evidence of super natural events, your story is just a story, it is not very concrete evidence. should we believ those who say they are abducted by aliens? they are just as sicnere as you.

james Randi has a $1million prize for anyone who can prove a supernatural event , why dont you submit your evidence for him iif it is so concrete?

you keep assuming a lie. you could be mistaken.

yeah, it didnt happen the way you say it did.

r u seriosly asking us 2 believe there is a god up there looking out for one baby but for example, let 6 million die in the holcaust, or 900,000 die in the Rwandan genocide?

"Historians do not say myth cannot rise within 35 years. They claim they cannot be established that quickly. " Is that Chrsitan historians you are tlaking about? what do you mean established? Certainly in the 1st century ad Christianity was not widely accpeted, it was probably a small cult, like many small cult that existed at the time. How was the Jesus myth in 70ad more established than the Islamic myth 35 years after Muhamed died? most of Arabia had converted to Islam when Muhamed was still alive. Why did they convert if his message was not true? All the same arguments you use, can be used much more effectivley for Islam. The Muslims died for their cause, and there were a lot more Muslims at the time of Muhamed than there were Christians at the supposed time of Christ. "The early Jewish writers who considered Christiany a heresy never disputed the claim of an empty tomb with "His body is here, go see for yourself" Instead they said the disciples stole it away." Do you have any jewish (not Christian) texts dating back no later than 50ad or so that say this or did you just make it up? "And what logical goal would there be in proclaiming a risen messiah when that teaching was not in their tradition, and that type of teaching got them excommunicated from their religous community and cost them their life? " Same for Islam mate, yet again they had a new tradition and they died for their beliefs. That Does not make their beliefs true. " Many sources outside the Bible (the Bible only records the martyrdom of Stephen and James) like Fox's book of the martyrs and others record them as historical fact. " Foxs book of the martyrs was written, I think, in the 16th century, is this you best source? Do you have any non Christian (contemporary of the time) sources that record the martydom of Christs dicsiples? Moreover you need also to show they died because they believed they saw the ressurection. They could have died (if they did indeed die as a marytr) becuase they believed he ws The Messiah and the resurection story got added later. With regard to Stephen, I dont think he is a witness even in the Gosples, so his death means nothing. I dont believe the bible says why James was killed,Josephus does mention the stoning of a James but that was for breaking jewish law, that does not mean he died becuase he believed he saw the ressurection. Just because a christian dies does not mean we can automatically say they died for their beliefs or that their beliefs were true.

Why would they "believe" it to be true apart from first hand knowledge? remember these are eye-witnesses to his death and burial. You dont know that, you are assuming that, yet again because it says so in the bible.

"What would have convinced the Apostles that JC was resurrected apart from seeing him? " Maybe someone saw him in a dream and it felt real, later on the stroy changed as all stories do. Since we dont have any original documents we dont even know what the original story was. Your assuming the story you read about the empty tomb actually happened, maybe that was made up later too.

Im not suggesting they appeared out of thn air. Im just saying we dont know when they were originally written and by whom. That ignorance is a fact. You can make whatever guess you like about when they were written. But ultimatley its just a guess. Maybe they didnt mention the destruction of Jerusalem because they were written before 70ad, maybe it was becuase they didnt want people to know it was written after, maybe it was because they didn't feel it was relvant to include it in the story, (Ive seen WWII stories that end before the war ended but were written after it), maybe they did write about the destruction and it got edited out, maybe the original author intended to write about it and died and subseuent scribes didnt want to add to the work., All these maybes are obviously speculation, but thats what your conclusion is too. THIS IS A FACT: we dont know when they were written, we dont know who wrote them . Anything else is a guess. Even if we accept the idea that they were written before ad 70 , your conclusion that a myth cannot arise within 35 years is completley without foundation. Why could a myhth not airse in 35 years? After Princess Diana died people saw aparationions of her within weeks. People were claiming Mohamed was the last prophet of god within 35 years of him dying, whats the difference? People might die for what they believed to be a lie if they thought it was for some greater good. More likely people may die for a iie becuase they believe it to be the truth , that belief however can be mistaken. Lastly how do we know the contemporaies of Jesus did die as martyrs?Is it becuase it says so in the bible?

Is that really the best you can do,?some vague prophecies claimed to have been fulfilled by Jesus followers. Im sorry these dont count at all because the fulfilment fo these prophecies is only given by you in the bible. The bible was written by Christs followers so they are not exactly objective witnesses to verify the claim are they? Yet again we come back to your same old argument: the bible is true because the bible says its true. Furthermore we dont know who wrote the goospels or when they were written, another reason not to consider them as good evidence. Lastly the prophecies themselves are not specific enough to really be taken seriously. For example your first prophesy is predicting someone coming to rule Isreal. It is not ncecssarily form the town of Bethlehem, some have argued that this is a man named Bethlehem (son of Calebs 2nd wife ), furthermore Jesus never ruled Isreal. Moreover we dont even know Jesus was really born in Bethlehem , we have to take Chrsitians word for it. and all thats assuming he even existed, something we dont know for sure either. You think the Christian authors dont have an agenda? You think they are above looking over old texts trying to make stuff fit it? I don't think this sort of thinking counts as evidence. If we are going to take a prediction seriously it has to be very specific, the dates in which it was made have to be confirmed by several indepent sources. The fulfilment of the prediction has to be equally specific not subject to vague interpretation of texts, that the fulfilment happened also has to be confirmed by several independent sources and its fulfilment has to be impossible by normal means. (If someone says I predict a Presidnet will come form Texas and hundreds of years later a President is elcted form Texas would we say wow what a fulfilment? No we would not) Again if you studied a bit of science you would see how a real prediction is made and verified. For example relativity predicts the exact amount of time a moving clock will lose when placed on a moving vehicle. These prediction have been verified to several decimal places , thats a real prediciton and real verification. Your vague stuff just pales in comparison. Your comment on marytdom is a ridculous argument and I have heard it from many other Christians. All it proves is that the early Chrsitians believed the Christian message. Plenty of people believe stuff very fervently without it being grounded in reality. For example, plenty of people believe they have been kidnapped by ufos, they believe it very passionatley and they believe it really happened to them. Are we to presume that everyone who believes somehting passionately is right?The early followers of Muhhamed were prepared to die for their beliefs, was he really god's last messanger, Im sure you doubt that, but thats just Christian double standards.

"But you have made your mind up about your worldview. Why are you claiming I must review neuro chemistry, economics or game theory to know, but you don't have read the Bible or other Christian philosophers? " ------------------------------------------------------- yes I have made up my mind but I will gladly change it, if the evidence demands. Christians rarely have the same attitude. My beliefs are based on evidence that is verifibale, yours are beliefs that are not verifiable. When asked how you know you the bible is true and how you know you have the right interpretation you said it was becuase of your wide and open minded study. That is why your study should now be open to scrutiny , I have not made such a claim. Now why should you study these other fields? Well,for example right now neuro chemsist are mapping which parts of the brain are responsible not just for our actions but also our emotional states. This is very strong evidence against your concpet that there is an inane human nature that can continue to exist outside of the brain. Now perhaps you wont agree with this, but if you are really open minded about this topic then perhaps you might research this as much as your holy texts. A proper grounding in real science might convince you that ghosts/spirits whatever you want to call them do not exist. So we cant use such ghosts as guides to interpret ancient books. Ill use the word ghost because that is common usage and you cant just change language because you dont like it.

Steve this is what you said: "I believe I have been thourough and open minded. I have purposedly sought out ideas (universities) from many different backgrounds. " and this leads you to the conclusion that Christianity is true. After I challenged you on this you replied: "I'm not convinced that being open minded means one has to have read all the works of antiquity that refer to other Gods. " So what you are saying is that in order to conclude that your faith is the one true faith you are not prepared to give a through study of other faiths? Nor are you prepared to study cosmology, evolutionary biology or geology for scientific thinking on our origins. I presume you also havent studied much neuro chemistry, economics or game theory all of which give evidencce for why people behave in moral or immoral ways. What you are really saying is that all you have studied is Christian texts with an open mind and guess what? you have come to a Christian conclusion. That is also how you know you have this invisible ghost giving you the guidance to understand your holy text. Its because you have studied the holy text and found that it tells you you have. I would call that a self reinforcing delusion. As to your question: "have you read every piece of literature in the realm of Christianity so you may keep an open mind toward it? No i havent , although I have read many Christian philosophers, but I am not the one who is claiming I have some holy truth revealed to me by ghosts through my throuough study. when I make claims I back them up through verifiable evidence, you dont.That's a very big difference.

"but is understood from scripture that only Christians have the HS in them. " So Chrsitianity is right because the book of the Christians tells them they are right. Is this supposed to be logical reasoning?

instead of answering the challenge offered you ignore it! yes Steve does often ignore such challenges. But I challenged you why you would link to such a silly film as "What the Bleep" and you ignored thst.

You still havent answered the qeustion how can you tell when the HS is guiding you and when your just hearing imaginary voices in your head. You say you are open minded, its easy to say. How many people say they are clsoed minded? Have you studied other areas of our origins, evolutionary biology, cosmology etc. How well do you know the Koran, the epic of Gilgmesh or the myhtologies of the Norse?