Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FFT*: Charles unmasks the anti-ID trollish tactic of attacking God, Christian values and worldview themes

Categories
Atheism
Control vs Anarchy
Food for thought
Politics
rhetoric
worldview
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a current thread on SJW invasions in engineering education,  in which yet another anti-ID commenter crosses over into troll territory, Charles does a very important worldviews and cultural agendas dissection. One, that is well worth headlining as *food for thought (as opposed to a point by point across-the-board endorsement):

Charles, 51>>The point of the original post was that Engineering was being contaminated with Social Justice Warrior values & viewpoints. As any engineer knows, what makes engineering “Engineering” is the rigorous adherence to physical reality, analysis, and testing to design something that is reliably fit for purpose. As the author’s article at American Conservative elaborates, Prof. Riley’s SJW viewpoint is the antithesis of sound Engineering. kairosfocus summarized this point with his comment that:

“Bridges gotta stand up under load.”

[Troll X’s]  snide and dismissive comment that

”How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?”

juxtaposed civil engineering with ID, impugning that ID was not Engineering. That is a fallacious comparison on several levels, not least of which is Engineering’s maturity born of hundreds of years of applied science, advancing technology, and development of best practices, contrasted with ID in its relative infancy, as well as engineering being all about “how to design” versus ID which endeavors to reduce to practice the “recognition of design”.

Implicit in [Troll X’s] comment is the presumption that evolution (or materialism or atheism) has a laudable track record over ID similar to engineering. As if to say “evolution” is a successful, testable, reliable theory like “engineering”, whereas ID is an engineering failure.

But evolution has no such track record of theoretical success. Modern evolution doesn’t even have a theory that makes testable predictions, and moreover, all of Darwinian evolution’s predictions (such as transition forms will be found in the geologic record)) have all failed, which I likened to engineering failures in my response to [Troll X]:

As compared to Darwinian Evolution’s collapsed bridges, toppled buildings, crashed airplanes and lack of repeatable, testable theory?

john_a_designer then affirms that [Troll X] hadn’t thought through the implications of his atheism, namely that atheism is bankrupt and contributes nothing intellectually, summed up as

“Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?”

Indeed.

At which point, I elaborated that while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ.

When someone “just disbelieves” there is little or no concern attached to the disbelief. I gave the example of disbelieving in a flat earth. When someone argues the earth is flat, the atheist might criticize that belief and show a space station picture of our spherical green, blue and white “marble”, but they don’t define themselves by their disbelief – they don’t call themselves “aflatearthers”, they don’t write volumes on the philosophy of aflatearthism, they don’t dedicate websites to flatearth skepticism, they don’t spend countless man-years holding flatearthers up to ridicule. No. They shrug, and move on.

As wrong headed as flatearthers are, why don’t disbelievers define themselves as “aflatearthers” and lobby for flatearth beliefs to be eliminated from society? Because they don’t care, because they have a confidence born of evidence and experience that the earth is round, and flatearth arguments just don’t matter.

But atheists define themselves as A-Theists – against, without, absent, sans, theism. They invariably in social or political gatherings are self-compelled to declare, to signal, their atheistic world view and how it is self-evident to be intellectually superior over Christians in specific and over religionists in general (cowards that they are, they rarely take specific exception with Muslims or Islam). And atheists write volumes about their self-labeled viewpoint, they fill libraries, they write textbooks, they lobby legislatures, they put signs on buses, all to advance their self-defined atheistic world view. They are very concerned and discontent about their disbelief.

Why?

Because they are intellectually threatened. Because “The Enlightenment” and atheism’s ascendancy is over. Back in the day, when we didn’t know about the Big Bang, when we didn’t know how the universe was fine-tuned for our life, when we didn’t know how exquisitely mechanized are cellular functions, when we didn’t know that DNA and RNA were actually huge complex information programs densely encoded in precisely folded chemical molecules that have no natural tendency to otherwise so organize themselves (let alone replicate and error correct), and then there is the little matter of human consciousness. Back then being an atheist was easy, almost automatic. It was easy to say “random chance did it” – but that was an ignorant and arrogant presumption.

Today, the materialist, the atheist, has no answer for any of that. They have a multitude of speculations, yes, but no engineering-like understanding or scientific theories that make testable predictions. Evolutionary “theory” in all its claims (setting aside its failures) has nothing like our level of understanding of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, or information theory. In fact the scientists who are expert in those subjects [—> will often] acknowledge that “chance” could not have begun our fine-tuned universe or life.

The modern atheist is forced into special pleading for a multi-verse, that free-will is imaginary and then piggyback on Christian morality as they have no basis in their own materialism to justify good or evil other than personal preference in any particular situation. About all of which, they could be complacent if it weren’t for Christian theists.

While the atheist has no defense against the failure of science to prove a multiverse or that life arose from inert chemicals, the Christian has an affirmative argument for what the atheist can’t prove. The Bible records that God made the Heavens and Earth, ex nihilo (the Big Bang), created life with consciousness and morality, and gave us free will to love and obey God, or not. Only the Christian is so audacious as to confront atheism directly.

Hence the atheist or materialist drive to remove Christian prayer from schools, thought from universities, and gatherings from public places. And the atheist was not content to merely suppress Christian viewpoints, but now seeks to impose atheist behavior on Christians; Christians must bake cakes for homosexual weddings, Christian chaplains must teach Islam, Christian schools must hire atheists and allow them to teach “diversity”. What the atheist can not achieve by intellectual persuasion, they seek to impose by legislation and force of confiscation and imprisonment.

All the foregoing while atheists cloak themselves in a false morality that they hijacked from aspects of Christianity. Atheists talk of being opposed to murder, except when Muslims murder homosexuals and then it’s abject silence. Atheists talk of being for equal rights for women, except unborn women or Muslim women. Atheists talk of doing good for mankind, but atheists don’t start hospitals, didn’t start universities (like Harvard or Princeton), and you don’t see atheists organizing charities or feeding the homeless. [–> NB: There are exceptions to this, we don’t have to endorse every claim to think something is worth headlining.]

The atheist argues that religious views have no justification in society’s laws, yet declaring bankruptcy has its roots in Judeo “jubilee” forgiveness of debt and servitude, marriage is a Judeo Christian sacrament, and the legal prohibitions on murder, theft, and lying all are millennia’s old Judeo-Christian teachings.

To Christian arguments against the atheist, the atheist in variably responds with a) “science will some day prove _____” and b) “there is no evidence for God (and the Bible doesn’t count as evidence)”

The problem for the atheist is that a) science is further away than ever of proving “chance” underlay the big bang and our information-based life. In fact, information may also underlie the laws of physics and the hence the fine-tuned universe in which we live, and b) there is evidence for the existence of God, some of it logical, philosophical arguments, some of it forensic proofs.

And now we come to the atheists’ discomfort with their own disbelief. So, not only is materialistic evolution a theoretical failure and scientific near impossibility, the atheist has no alternative proven scientific explanation for what the Bible plainly declares were creative acts of God. The atheist is forced to borrow and impose biblical concepts just to maintain a civil society (while banning Christian beliefs the atheist dislikes). Lastly the atheist is further confronted with evidence for God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. That forensic evidence is fulfilled biblical prophecy in which God supernaturally declares to Daniel several hundred years in advance that the Messiah would appear, and forensic evidence further shows that prophecy to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.>>

Let’s “embed” a highly relevant video that we need to be reminded of:

[vimeo 17960119]

Food for thought, let us ponder and let us discuss responsibly, noting that we are not here endorsing every point or claim but rather think it is well worth pondering together. END

Comments
@ your 35, Armand Jacks : 'A complete misrepresentation of what I am doing. I can’t speak for others. All I am doing is asking you to support your world view. The same thing that you and others demand of us.' - addressed to JAD by Armand. The atheist world-view seems to be reducible to 'It's all about freedom, freedom to 'let it all hang out', to 'do my own thing'. Which happens to be the direct anthithesis of freedom. At least, under Stalin, for instance, however accidentally or cynically used as a front, certain laws would inevitably conduce to the common good. Not so moral anarchy, such as, for instance, would prevail in a organised-crime milieu (such as some Governments. No names, no pack-drill). All together better for vice to pay tribute to virtue than that no such tribute should be paid, as was the case with Pinochet. (Off-topic, but an interesting snippet, gleaned from the online site, Political Ponerology, is that Stalin's psychopathy was due to a physical of deficiency of part of his brain.)Axel
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
What appears to be lacking is an understanding of the fine line God uses to preserve our free will. Total free will requires total lack of coercion. God acts in accordance to this rule. He always gives us enough information to understand everything, but never enough to force us to acknowledge His presence. It is all about love. True love requires absolute free will, including the ability to reject to love of another. God is a true lover. If you are willing to believe, you are then blessed with understanding. If you are only willing to honestly ask God to reveal Himself to you then he will. But He will never force Himself on you. That includes how we look at the world around us. Believers see only the work of God. Non-believers can only see theories that avoid having to recognize God. I challenge the non-believers to ask God honestly to reveal Himself. They will be surprised how quickly something will happen in their lives that will require a choice for or against God. In 2001 I was baptized into the Catholic Church. The whole world around me "changed" and became understandable, not because the world changed but because I changed.GCS
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
Your no 56, jdk Well, your reponse must be rational in your own eyes, though why my words should have infuriated you is a puzzle. If the boot was on the other foot, I would laugh, and say : 'Don't talk such tosh, jdk, there's a good chap.' However, for the life of me, I cannot see how an academically-educated person, even an Arts student, could fail to see the unavoidable, theistic implication of the 'inter-subjectivity' of our observations, revealed by quantum mechanics; surely, a self-explanatory indication that we each live in different worlds, integrated and coordinated by the great mind (Big Giant Head) of which Max Planck spoke as being the matrix of all matter. Both the following quotes of Max Planck point to it : 'I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness.' 'As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.' Einstein remarked that the more he studied science, the more he believed in God. Does it not disturb you at all that virtually almost all the greatest scientific thinkers have been either Christians, theists or deists ? And, inevitably, believers in the intelligent design of our universe(s!)Axel
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Those who are interested in the discussion that adequately answered a distractive commenter are referred to the list of most active threads, again. There is no point in side-tracking this thread (other than distraction of course).kairosfocus
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
Hi Dave. I've also been puzzled by the claim Pearcey and others make. It seems empty and very un-nuanced to me. Here are a few thoughts: She says, The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. I don't see these as incompatible. First, no, it is false that "the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value." There are basic aspects of our minds, many of which we share with other animals, that were selected for their survival value: knowing that you shouldn't walk into a wall because it will hurt has both survival and truth-value. Humans, and organisms in general, to various degrees, have to know the truth about some aspects of reality in order to survey. With the advent of verbal language, abstract thinking, and then symbolic languages, however, we have been able to discover things even though knowledge about them was not selected for. For instance, we have learned about atomic structure, not because that knowledge was selected for or had evolutionary survival value, but because skills that did evolve (language, et al) have allowed our us to discover those ideas. This is a truth that arose from skills which have proved very useful beyond the context in which they evolutionarily arose. We test our ideas against our experience of the world. The fact that our minds first arose in an evolutionary context in which survival played a major role does not negate the fact that since then we have discovered countless truths by investigating the world in deeper ways. Now, if Pearcey means that our minds did not evolve to know Truth with a capital T, then that is conflating a practical knowledge about accessible truth's with some body of non-existent ideal "Truths". This conflation is why I don't think her argument is meaningful.jdk
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
rvb8 wrote:
the persnal miracle I would accept as irrefutable proof of a deity, would be seeing my brother’s severed index finger grow back.
Isn't ironic then, that when Jesus was arrested, he restored the ear of the High Priest's servant that Peter severed with his sword. This miracle was seen by all who were there, yet the Talmud only records that Jesus was a magician. Ok. The next step to make it personal for you, is to begin praying to God regarding your brother's severed finger and your unbelief, which is what this is about. Do this with sincerity. Persist, if what I wrote below is true. "Heavenly Father, I don't know whether you even exist. But if you do, I'm willing to trust you. The only thing I can think of that would change my mind is if you would restore my brother's severed finger. Please help me with my unbelief because you said you care about people and don't want anyone to be judged and destroyed. I've heard that you sent your Son, Jesus, the human representation of yourself, to make this possible. I would really appreciate your healing and restoring presence in my life, but I need your help with my unbelief. Amen." Kind regards, -QQuerius
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
There is a strain of pop-atheism for which you can say pretty much whatever you like about it. However, generalizations of demographics are destined to have counter-examples. Appealing to someone's motivations is ad hominem, a logical fallacy. However, as so many are driven by their motivations, and not logic (most people, "rationalists" included, I expect) emotional persuasion is often necessary for them to recognize or at least respect even a flawless logical construction. It's maddening.LocalMinimum
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 53
Seversky, the issue on the table is reformation not imposition by force based on in effect might makes right; that would utterly undermine the whole point and would simply open the door to more mischief. Reformation — starting with our souls — comes first and foremost. KF
I think we all agree that "reformation" is the better solution if it means that women with unwanted pregnancies can be persuaded that there are better ways to deal with them than abortion. Remove the demand for abortion and it will end. It's also true, however, that the same argument could be applied to any of the behaviors that are categorized as crimes by society. Reformation would also be a better solution but that has not prevented the enactment of laws making those behaviors crimes.Seversky
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
jdk: There is much anthropological evidence that people in general have questions about issues that cause them concern, such as death as well as many others, and universally make up stories to avoid the uncertainty of not knowing. This is a typically meaningless spiel coming from someone who has a hard time with meaning, apparently. No dude, here is the anthropology: people throughout history FROM ALL CULTURES have died and come back to tell the stories of what they have experienced. And here is the psychology: Sincere people with Ph.D's have studied this phenomenon using the best methods possible considering the subject matter is non-repeatable. And here is the clincher, actually a pre-requisite for the researcher: Without a priori PHILOSOPHICAL COMMITMENT. And here is more psychology: people with an a priori philosophical commitment are committed to ridicule such research and the researchers themselves. Thus ridicule from scientists becomes part of the scientific method they forgot to teach us in school I guess. And more psychology for you: normal, highly functioning people have a deeply rooted impulse to believe in the concept of life's meaning and ultimate purpose, even if they don't have clearly formed philosphical direction in regards to it. Add to this impulse the stories people tell who have died and returned to life, then you should be able to see why the materialist worldview is destined to always be a small minority view. Deal with it. Here is a research report: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799351/m1/1/ Deal with it.groovamos
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
There are lots of theists who go to "atheist" sites also–you're just not one of them–and lots of atheists who never, ever bother arguing against theism.jdk
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
I spend zero time going to atheist sites. They are absolutely meaningless to me. Heard (and refuted) all their arguments at least a hundred times. Atheists, on the other hand, can't seem to stop themselves from frequenting theism sites and posting comments, even taking the time to engage in long discussion threads. That is fascinating to me. I have zero desire to visit atheist websites, let alone post comments and engage in long discussions.Truth Will Set You Free
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
KF, I know this has been discussed before, but I don't recall seeing a clear explanation why this argument of Pearcey's:
Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, "If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true, ... the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth." What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it "serves evolutionary success, not truth." In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.
is not fallacious. Here's my reading of it:
1. Assume Darwin's theory is true. 2. Then Darwin's theory was selected because it satisfies some criteria other than "it is a true theory". 3. Therefore, Darwin's theory is not true.
Is it obvious to you that this is not a valid argument? What have I missed?daveS
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
rvb8 @ 72
Tacitus, Seutonius, and Pliny, all mention Christ do they? Where?
Seutonius: (c. A.D. 110)
25 ... 3 He forbade men of foreign birth to use the Roman names so far as those of the clans were concerned. Those who usurped the privileges of Roman citizenship he executed in the Esquiline field. He restored to the senate the provinces of Achaia and Macedonia, which Tiberius had taken into his own charge. He deprived the Lycians of their independence because of deadly intestine feuds, and restored theirs to the Rhodians, since they had given up their former faults. He allowed the people of Ilium perpetual exemption from tribute, on the ground that they were the founders of the Roman race, reading an ancient letter of the senate and people of Rome written in Greek to king Seleucus, in which they promised him their friendship and alliance only on condition that he should keep their kinsfolk of Ilium free from every burden. 4 Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus,75 he expelled them from Rome. He allowed the envoys of the Germans to sit in the orchestra, led by their naïve self-confidence; for when they had been taken to the seats occupied by the common people and saw the Parthian and Armenian envoys sitting with the senate, they moved of their own accord to the same part of the theatre, protesting that their merits and rank were no whit inferior. 5 He utterly abolished the cruel and inhuman religion of the Druids among the Gauls, which under Augustus had merely been prohibited to Roman citizens; on the other hand he even attempted to transfer the Eleusinian rites from Attica to Rome, and had the temple of Venus Erycina in Sicily, which had fallen to ruin through age, restored at the expense of the treasury of the Roman people. He struck his treaties with foreign princes in the Forum, sacrificing a pig and reciting the ancient formula of the fetial priests. But these and other acts, and in fact almost the whole conduct of his reign, were dictated not so much by his own judgment as that of his wives and freedmen, since he nearly always acted in accordance with their interests and desires.
C. Suetonius Tranquillus, "The Life of Claudius" 25.4, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Loeb (1914)
Pliny, the Younger: (A.D. 112)
XCVII To THE EMPEROR TRAJAN IT is my invariable rule, Sir, to refer to you in all matters where I feel doubtful; for who is more capable of emoving my scruples, or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. Whether, therefore, any difference is usually made with respect to ages, or no distinction is to be observed between the young and the adult; whether repentance entitles them to a pardon; or if a man has been once a Christian, it avails nothing to desist from his error; whether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt.In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been brought before me as Christians is this: I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it, I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted, I ordered them to be at once punished: for I was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction. There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation, but being Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to Rome. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred. An anonymous information was laid before me containing a charge against several persons, who upon examination denied they were Christians, or had ever been so. They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered religious rites with wine and incense before your statue (which for that purpose I had ordered to be brought, together with those of the gods), and even reviled the name of Christ: whereas there is no forcing, it is said, those who are really Christians into any of these compliances: I thought it proper, therefore, to discharge them. Some among those who were accused by a witness in person at first confessed themselves Christians, but immediately after denied it; the rest owned indeed that they had been of that number formerly, but had now (some above three, others more, and a few above twenty years ago) renounced that error. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, uttering imprecations at the same time against the name of Christ. They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for the purposes of any wicked design, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble, to eat in common a harmless meal. From this custom, however, they desisted after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I forbade the meeting of any assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it so much the more necessary to endeavor to extort the real truth, by putting two female slaves to the torture, who were said to officiate' in their religious rites: but all I could discover was evidence of an absurd and extravagant superstition. I deemed it expedient, therefore, to adjourn all further proceedings, in order to consult you. For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress. The temples, at least, which were once almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred rites, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for the victims, which till lately found very few purchasers. From all this it is easy to conjecture what numbers might be reclaimed if a general pardon were granted to those who shall repent of their error. XCVIII TRAJAN TO PLINY You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundtis, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to he received in any sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.
Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Letters of Pliny [the Younger], tr. William Melmoth (1777), ed. F. C. T. Bosanquet
Tacitus: (c. A.D. 117)
Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals 15.44, The complete works of Tacitus, tr. Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb, The Modern Library (1942)
rvb8, there is a tradition amongst the atheists, indeed at UD the atheists even consider it virtue, and that is, when you have absolutely no evidence, facts, or witnesses to back up your outrageous claims, bluffing is fine. Don’t pull out the names of respected thinkers who lived arround the time of Christ, and pretend they didn't write a single word about Him. It’s so plainly a lie as to be irritating.Charles
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
KF:
F/N: A distractive irresponsible commenter continues with mischaracterising the record. Sad, but revealing about the habitual quality of thought involved in too much of skepticism. Let us move on with serious discussion. KF
Once again, attack my character rather than answer a very simple question. Is your stance on not charging women who have abortions with first degree murder due to hipocrysy, misogyny, or do you have a rationale for your opinion that I am unaware of? I am honestly trying to understand your thinking on this. All you have spouted is your oft repeated Wilberforce example, which has no relevance in a world where abortion is illegal. A Wilberforce approach may get you to an abortion ban but you have not dealt with what to do with people who break this law. Referencing Wilberforce in this respect has no value as he supported the charging of those breaking the slave trade laws. As there was never a penalty associated with the slave trade, it made sense that they had to develop charges and penalties from scratch. But we already have charges and penalties on the books for the premeditated killing of a human being. Not using existing laws to prosecute women who have abortions is either hipocrysy (consciously or subconsciously acknowledging that the fetus does not have the same right to life as you or I) or misogyny (believing that women are intellectually and/or emotionally incapable of making informed decisions). I would love to think that there is a third option, but I am skeptical.Armand Jacks
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
FFT4: Let us hear from the horse's mouth, as someone unwisely tries to brazen out the above incoherence:
Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>
And again:
Ever since Newton physics has ruled out purposes in the physical realm. If the physical facts fix all the facts, however, then in doing so, it rules out purposes altogether, in biology, in human affairs, and in human thought-processes. [--> Note, this is by implication of evolutionary materialistic scientism] Showing how it could do so was a tall order. Until Darwin came along things looked pretty good for Kant’s pithy observation that there never would be a Newton for the blade of grass—that physics could not explain living things, human or otherwise, because it couldn’t invoke purpose. But the process that Darwin discovered–random, or rather blind variation, and natural selection, or rather passive environmental filtration–does all the work of explaining the means/ends economy of biological nature that shouts out ‘purpose’ or ‘design’ at us. What Darwin showed was that all of the beautiful suitability of living things to their environment, every case of fit between organism and niche, and all of the intricate meshing of parts into wholes, is just the result of blind causal processes. It’s all just the foresightless play of fermions and bosons producing, in us conspiracy-theorists, the illusion of purpose. Of course, that is no surprise to scientism; if physics fixes all the facts, it could not have turned out any other way. In fact, the mechanism Darwin discovered for building adaptations is the only game in town. [from: "The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality" by Alex Rosenberg here at Wayback Machine. For responses at length cf Feser here on ]
Ruse and Wilson cap off, on morality as delusion:
The time has come to take seriously the fact [--> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc.] that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.
[ --> And everything instantly falls apart as this would set grand delusion loose in our mental lives. Even logical reasoning is guided by the conscience-driven urge to truth, right and justice, so once such a grand delusion is let loose it undermines the general credibility of conscious mindedness, setting up a cascade of shadow-show worlds. The skeptical spider has enmeshed himself in his own web. Thus, any such scheme should be set aside as self-refuting.]
[Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991. (NB: Cf. a separate discussion on the grounding of worldviews and ethics here on, which includes a specific discussion of the grounding of ethics and goes on to Biblical theism; having first addressed the roots of the modern evolutionary materialist mindset and its pretensions to the mantle of science. Also cf. here on for Plato's warning in The Laws, Bk X, on social consequences of the rise of such a view as the philosophy of the avant garde in a community.]
This should give serious pause to a sober-minded adherent of evolutionary materialistic scientism or any other views that are set up to fit in with that dominant and too often domineering ideology. Unfortunately, sober-mindedness is often at a steep discount nowadays. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
FFT3: The epistemological and logical failure of evolutionary materialistic scientism (and thus of its fellow traveller ideologies), through self-falsification. Here, Nancy Pearcey is an excellent source to simply clip, this being done as there is a tendency of the sort of selectively hyperskeptical objectors we typically face to dismiss a relatively unknown individual regardless of the substance of argument. And in this case objections in an earlier thread of discussion pivoted on oh we don't know who this Grey is, where he is in fact a major voice in the UK. The issue, as always, is that appeals to emotions and prejudices fail to warrant in themselves, those to authority are no better than the facts, assumptions and reasoning, and the latter is therefore where we must go. For those who would then try the distractor, oh see how agitated YOU are, putting up thousands of words, kindly note, I am a contributor to UD, and here am functioning in the role of an educator, for those willing to learn and think seriously about their worldviews. Ms Pearcey:
A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. “This circle is square” is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity — which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself . . . . An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value.
[--> that is, responsible, rational freedom is undermined. Cf here William Provine in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.” [ENV excerpt, Finding Truth (David C. Cook, 2015) by Nancy Pearcey.]
KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
FFT2: What about worldviews and critically aware worldview stances?
world·view (wûrld?vyo?o?) n. 1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. In both senses also called Weltanschauung. [Translation of German Weltanschauung.] American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Welt•an•schau•ung (?v?lt??n??a? ??) n. German. a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it. [literally, world-view] Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Obviously, everyone has a perspective, from which s/he interprets and acts into the world. The issue is, is that view sound or at least reasonably and responsibly tenable? That leads to the issues of first philosophy, here metaphysics, best understood as, roughly, the critical assessment of worldviews. Such involves, comparative difficulties -- all major options will face difficulties, mysteries etc [Phil being the study of hard but profound questions, those with no easy answers!] -- across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (elegantly simple without being either an ad hoc patchwork or simplistic). A good first point is, that any claim A can be challenged, leading to B held to ground it. But B is then open to challenge, thus C, D . . . Such poses the issue of the triple challenge of worldview rooting: infinite regress is absurd and unworkable, circularity by which some P depends on some Q and the reverse is grand question-begging, so the only viable option is some finitely remote start-point F . . . the faith-point . . .that embeds self-evident plumbline truths [criteria of testing other claims, e.g implications of distinct identity], and has fleshed out a coherent, factually adequate and explanatorily defensible framework for understanding the world. Such avoids question-begging by being open to comparative difficulties. A good worldview is then a reasonable, responsible faith resting on a position that meets the comparative difficulties tests. It will be argued onward that ethical theism meets this test,and that by highly relevant contrast, evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers does not, cannot -- they are irretrievably incoherent and necessarily self-falsifying. Unfortunately, our civilisation has in significant quarters abandoned what is sound in favour of what is unsound and has embarked on a march of patently ruinous folly. More to follow. KF PS: Note the tip-sheet here.kairosfocus
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
F/N: As it has been buried in onward commentary on anything but that, let me again bring forward the previous on the objectivity of moral government and where that points: _________________ >> normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.>> _________________ It is clear that there is no cogent relativist response to the objectivity or the grounding of moral governance. Indeed, it looks a lot like animosity motivates attempts to undermine what they do not like, while trying to manipulate then through lawfare to usurp the sword of justice and impose will to power. Long, grim history paid for in blood and tears serves as a warning, if we will heed it, KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT
F/N: A distractive irresponsible commenter continues with mischaracterising the record. Sad, but revealing about the habitual quality of thought involved in too much of skepticism. Let us move on with serious discussion. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT
RVB8, if you are unaware of the references to Jesus of Nazareth in the leading Roman cases commonly cited in discussions, that alone says that you have need to do some basic homework -- as you and others have been repeatedly invited to do. And you need to ponder why it is the skeptical sources you have obviously looked to for intellectual leadership have failed to soundly address that basic fact. As for the undue suspicion of the gospels, acts and epistles, the blanket dismissal of such an eyewitness lifetime corpus of historical evidence that has been amply backed up by archaeological investigations speaks further volumes about the state of skeptical thought today. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Q, the persnal miracle I would accept as irrefutable proof of a deity, would be seeing my brother's severed index finger grow back. Have at it!rvb8
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
Incidentally, the same prophecy in Daniel that predicted the Messiah's appearance, also predicted that he would be killed, and then that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed. However, no amount of prophecy, miracles, wisdom, eye-witness testimony, changed lives, changed society, historical confirmation, or anything else can ever convince someone who is emotionally committed to unbelief. That unwillingness can be demonstrated. Just ask someone what personal miracle it would take in their lives to convince them that God loves them and wants to rescue them from destruction. Ask them to be specific, to write it down, and to sign it. It's been my experience that they won't agree to do so. Or they will ask a question that they feel hasn't ever been adequately answered. When I ask such a person whether they would be open to believing in God if I provide an answer, they again will always refuse. The reason is that they need some objection to allow themselves to live their lives independently from anything that might restrain their free will or pet sin. What does work is a willingness by them to allow God into their lives--usually after they suffer some sort of personal shipwreck in their lives. Just sayin'. -QQuerius
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
KF:
For record, several commenters (not just me) gave significant and in my view more than adequate, cogent answers to issues raised by several objectors, across several recent UD threads — ...
Your "more than adequate" responses involved nothing more than saying that women who have abortions should be charged with something far less than first degree murder. A consideration that is not afforded to anyone else convicted of a premeditated murder. Others suggested creating a new classification of homicide. Again, something that has not been seen necessary for any other instances of premeditated murder. In fact, most modern societies have evolved very similar systems with respect to homicide. And then there was WJM's draconian suggestion that they should be forcibly sterilized. I don't think even you would support that option. So, as all readers can clearly see, neither you nor anyone else has adequately answered my question as to why you would not charge these women with first degree murder. Would you like to make another attempt?Armand Jacks
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
Charles, Tacitus, Seutonius, and Pliny, all mention Christ do they? Where? There is a tradition amongst the religious, indeed in Islam it is even considered a virtue, and that is, when you have absolutely no evidence, facts, or witnesses to back up your outrageous claims, lying is fine. Please stop lying for Christ. If He is real He wouldn't appreciate it, the fact He isn't real means your efforts are a waste of time. Again, don't pull out the names of respected thinkers who lived arround the time of Christ, and suggest they were drinking buddies. It's so plainly a lie as to be irritating.rvb8
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT
Bob O'H @ 46
How do we know that the decree was from Artaxerxes I, rather than (say) 605 BC, 539 BC or 445BC?
I'm unaware of any decree in 605 B.C. related to prophecy. To what specifically did you refer? The decree in 538 B.C. is: Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah" (Ezr 1:2). The decree in 444 B.C. is: And I said to the king, "If it please the king, let letters be given me for the governors of the provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah, and a letter to Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I will go " And the king granted them to me because the good hand of my God was on me. (Neh 2:7-8) The decree in Dan 9:25 is: To rebuild and restore Jerusalem (not the Temple), whereas the decree to Cyrus is to rebuild the Temple, and to Nehemiah to rebuild the wall, the gates and the temple. Note further that Nehemiah was given building materials, but Ezra was given broad authority to "inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem" plus a population of Jews, gold & silver, authorization to make demands upon the King's treasurers, and protection from taxes and tributes.
Also, if Christ is “the Anointed One, the ruler”, why didn’t early Christians “destroy the city and the sanctuary.”?
Because "Messiah the Prince" and the "Prince who is to come" are not the same figures. While the word "Prince" is translated from the Hebrew "na?gid" (Strong's H5057) in both phrases, in the former the context refers to the Messiah, while in the latter the context is eschatological because "even to the end there will be war" and Dan 9:27 refers to this same figure. Thus the "prince who is to come" is, perhaps, the little horn of Dan 7:8 or the beast from the sea (Rev 13:1), and in any event his people are not Christians.Charles
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
rvb8 @ 69
Quoting Josephus continuously is also not helpful. One supposed eyewitness, and a self congratulatory book, do not historical fact make.
You deliberately ignore the factual archaeologic, numismatic, astronimical, calendric and philological evidence.
We know that Jesus was such a thorn in the then, greatest empire in the western world, that the Romans wrote not one word about him
Well, except for the words of Seutonius, Pliny, and Tacitus (and much of Tacitus has been lost).
Why are the miracles of today, so much more, run of the mill, tedious explainable, non-miracles
Because none of them cure leprosy or raise the dead? But then ignorance is so much easier than intelligence.Charles
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
Quoting the Bible as historical evidence is self defeating. Quoting Josephus continuously is also not helpful. One supposed eyewitness, and a self congratulatory book, do not historical fact make. We now know through detailed, and extensive Israeli excavations that David, and his great kingdom of unmatched wealth and power, was just another two-bit warrior king, who conquered tiny areas of territory and ruled over other two-bit goat herding non-event towns; the Bible writers had a tendency to exagerate; lie? We know that the Moses led escape from Pharoh was so important a God led event, that the Egyptians mention it not once in their extensive histories. We know that Jesus was such a thorn in the then, greatest empire in the western world, that the Romans wrote not one word about him. Never mind. This is not trollish, or even anti-God or anti-Christian. It is however, fact. If these events and people who demand so much of our attention today, really did do the supernatural acts attributed to them, then why, do other cultures living concurrent with them, (the Greeks, the Egyptions, the Romans, the Phillistines etc) not mention once these great, childish, supernatural, events? One more question; Why are the miracles of today, so much more, run of the mill, tedious explainable, non-miracles?rvb8
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
For record, several commenters (not just me) gave significant and in my view more than adequate, cogent answers to issues raised by several objectors, across several recent UD threads -- some of which are still on the list of most active threads over the past month. The onward rhetorical games in that context have removed at least one commenter from the list of those I view as responsible; not least because they make material misrepresentations of the case on substantial merits and would derail further discussions. That is a context in which I simply made a summary note above and refuse to be further side tracked. It is my intent to proceed to address the substantial issues at focus of this discussion, first because they are highly important, and second because the fact of irresponsible and persistent attempts to derail points to the need to actually redouble focus on such matters. KFkairosfocus
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
jdk @ 31
I don’t accept your “facts” as being actually factually true.
Crucifixion in A.D. 30 Jesus tells His disciples that to "prepare to eat the Passover" they are go into Jerusalem and inform a certain man that Jesus and His disciples will eat the Passover in that man's "upper room" (Mat 26:17-18, Mar 14:12-15, Luk 22:8-12). Yet, John records that it was before the Feast of Passover while Jesus and His disciples were eating the Passover supper in the upper room (Joh 13:1-4).  Luke records that while they were eating in the upper room, Jesus said He had "earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" (Luk 22:15). Keep in mind that Jesus is the Passover "Lamb of God" who is to be sacrificed in the same way as did the Israelites sacrifice a lamb and paint their door posts with its blood to mark the homes that God's destroyer is to "pass over" that night when all of Egypts first born were killed (Ex 12:6-14, Lev 23:3-5; Num 28:16).  Jesus is to be sacrificed on Passover.  So, that night, following the Passover supper in the upper room, Jesus is betrayed by Judas, interrogated and tried all night, and then the following morning He is scourged and then crucified by the Romans that afternoon.  The Pharisees come to Pilate and insist that Jesus body be taken down off the cross, because it was "preparation day" before the high Sabbath was to begin (Mat 27:58-62, Mar 15:42-43, Luk 23:50-54, Joh 19:31) So here's the issue.  Jesus has His disciples arrange for the upper room on "preparation day" and then eats the Passover with his disciples, Jesus even acknowledges that it is a Passover meal He is eating with them (Luk 22:15).  But the following day Jesus is sacrificed as the Lamb of God, on Passover preparation day again (Mat 27:58-62, Mar 15:42-43, Luk 23:50-54) and then his body taken down from the cross before the High Sabbath was to begin (Joh 19:31). Question: How can Jesus eat the Passover with his disciples on preparation day in the upper room, and the following day be sacrificed on preparation day again before Passover as the Lamb of God?  How can two seemingly legitimate Passovers be observed 1 day apart? Answer: Two different groups were observing Passover according to two different calendars.  Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover according to the Essene calendar (a 364-day solar calendar synchronized to the vernal equinox) in the upper (known to have been in the Essene quarter of Jerusalem), while the following day the Jews (Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees, most of the Jewish population) ate the "Passover of the Jews" (Joh 2:13, Joh 6:4, Joh 11:55) according to the Rabbinic calendar (an intercalated luni-solar calendar with embolismic months on a 19 year cycle). Only in A.D. 30, due to the variations in the calculated Rabbinic calendar, did the Passover Jews fall 1 day after the Passover of the Essenes.  In all other years the difference is several days. In A.D. 30 the Essene Passover (Nisan 14th on the Essene calendar) fell on April 4th Julian while the Passover of the Jews (Nisan 14th on the Rabbinic calculated calendar) fell on April 5th Julian.  Only in A.D. 30 can the crucifixion accounts of the Gospels be harmonized. The formula for the Rabbinic calculations (the modern Hillel II Calendar) were published around A.D. 359 by Hillel II.  There are two synchronisms that establish that the Hillel II formula was in use as early as 5 B.C.
- Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 17, paragraphs 8-9 recounts certain events which began the Jewish war against the Romans in A.D. 66, establishes that Elul 7th in A.D. 66 was a sabbath (Saturday) - Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews, Book 17", Chapter 6, paragraph 4 reports a lunar eclipse that occurred on the night 'following the day on which the Jews observed an important fast'. Ta’anit Bechorim fast on on 3756 A.M. Nisan 14 converts to -5 B.C. March 22 and is 1 day before the eclipse on March 23, and Yom Kippur fast on 3757 A.M. Tishri 10 converts to -5 B.C. September 11 which is 4 days before the eclipse on September 15.
Charles
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
jdk @ 31
I don’t accept your “facts” as being actually factually true.
Tiberius' 15th Year is A.D. 26 A.D. 26 being the 15th year of Tiberius is reckoned from his co-reign with Augusts in A.D. 12. The evidence for reckoning Tiberius' reign from the death of Augustus in A.D. 14 is:
- Two coins 'Silanus Antioch RPC 4270' and 'Silanus Selucia RPC 4330' which double date Tiberius 1st and 3rd years to Actian 45th and 47th years which equates to the latter halves of A.D. 14 and 16, respectively. - Ant. 18.4.6 wherein the death of Philip is attested as the year Vitellius was Consul (A.U.C. 787) which equates to A.D. 34 and when Tiberius was in his 20th year, which implies his reign began in A.D. 14.
However, the evidence for reckoning Tiberius' reign from his co-reign with Augustus in A.D. 12 is:
- Coins dated "Tiberius 17th year" minted in Judea by Pontius Pilate in A.D. 29 and later lack the "Empress Julia" honorifc, Julia Augusta (Livia Drusilla) having died in A.D. 29, which implies Tiberius reign, as understood in Judea, began in A.D. 12. (see Coins of Gratus and Pilate under Tiberius) - Variant manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities 18.4.6 wherein the death of Philip is attested as the year Vitellius was Consul (A.U.C. 787) which equates to A.D. 34 and when Tiberius was in his 22nd year, which implies his reign began in A.D. 12. Ostensibly, these variants were created by earlier historians emending Josephus' text seeking to "correct" what they thought was an error. These variants show there was no single viewpoint as to how Tiberius reign was reckoned. - C. Vellius Paterculus (2.121.2f) cites Tiberius celebrated his victory of the Illyrian War in Rome on Oct 23 of A.D. 12, following which Seutonius reports the consuls gave Tiberius co-reign with Augustus over the provinces: He [Vellius] returned to Rome in A.D. 12, presumably.106 He and his brother took an honourable part in the triumph which Tiberius belatedly held on 23 October A.D. 12 for the Illyrian War.107
107 Velleius 2.121.2f, in urbem reversus iam pridem debitum sed continuatione bellorum dilatum ex Pannoniis Delmatisque egit triumphum; Fasti Praenest., I.I. 13.2.135, 524f, [X K. Nov.] Ti. Caesar curru triumphavit ex Ilurico. On 23 Sept. A.D. 11 Tiberius and Germanicus were still in the Rhineland. After celebrating Augustus' birthday there, they returned to Italy (Dio 56.25.2f). It therefore becomes virtually impossible for Tiberius to have triumphed on 23 Oct. A.D. 11, in view of the time required for the journey and the preparations for the triumph. Moreover, it is clear from Velleius (2.121, cf. Suetonius Tib. 20f) that Tiberius did not return to Germany after his triumph. But Tacitus (Ann. 2.26) quotes Tiberius as saying se novies a divo Augusto in Germaniam missum: [cdd: was sent nine times by Augustus into Germany] the ninth occasion must fall in A.D. 12, the others being 9, 8, 7 B.C. and A.D. 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 (cf. PIR2 2.C941). Suetonius, Tib. 20.1 (a Germania in urbem post biennium regressus triumphum quem distulerat egit), is indecisive for the date, but compatible with A.D. 12. Augustus' reference to ??? ???????? ??????? in Dio (Xiph.) 56.26.2 in A.D. 12 is a slight additional indication that Tiberius' task in Germany was not completed until that year. We may conclude that per annos continuos VIIII (A.D. 4-12) is the right reading in Velleius 2.104.3.
G. V. Sumner, "The Truth about Velleius Paterculus: Prolegomena" Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 74 (1970), pp. 273-274
On Oct 23, A.U.C. 765 = A.D. 12, he celebrated a triumph for his military victories in Germany and Pannonia.  Referring to this event, Suetonius158 says that “the consuls caused a law to be passed soon after this that he should govern the provinces jointly with Augustus and hold the census with him.”  The date when Tiberius thus began to govern the provinces jointly with Augustus was probably A.D. 12,159 although arguments have been presented for putting it in A.D. 11 or 13.160  In this connection Tacitus describes Tiberius Nero as collega imperii, “colleague in the empire” (Annals 1.3), and some consider him joint emperor with Augustus from this time on.161
158 Tiberius 21. 159 Suetonius, ed. J. C. Rolfe (LCL), vol. 1, 323. 160 Holzmeister, Chronologia vitae Christi, 66. 161 EB 22:176.
Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology Hendrickson Publishers (1998) Rev. ed. p. 330
As with many reigns (e.g. Hebrew kings, Herod the Great) their beginning is often reckoned from different events and by different calendars, and Tiberius seems no exception.  His reign as Emperor of Rome can be reckoned from either his co-reign with Augustus in A.D. 12 or his appointment as Head of State subsequent to Augustus death in A.D. 14.  Both reckonings are correct and likely dependent on the viewpoint of the reckoner: Romans and Greeks ostensibly being more accustomed to reckoning the next reign from the death of the former emperor, while Jews and Judeans (e.g. Josephus and Luke) ostensibly having been subjected to Tiberius' authority upon his co-reign with Augustus reckoning it two years earlier. [looks like WordPress doesn't like greek letters]Charles
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18