Well, does it help if I rephrase my assumption as "2. I assume that my senses do not deceive me"? That's not far off what I mean. You must appreciate that you cannot use your senses to confirm that they are not being deceived. And you must know examples of when each of your senses have deceived you, mainly because of the incorrect modelling done by the brain on the data fed in from the sense organs.
I agree.
Stuu: You can't have 'causes' if time doesn't exist yet...
Sorry, but it's true.
Why? Can you provide a source that proves that cause is dependent upon time?
Agree. You seem to be doing exactly this.
Is this a comeback? "I know you are but what am I?" Come on, man.
You haven't yet posted anything that a real historian would recognise as valid.
Interesting, since my sources are history text books, scholars who are utilized by National Geographic, Discovery, BBC, etc.
So, since my evidence
is accepted, does that not render this claim of yours false? (This is rhetorical; of course it does)
The oldest version is from the Fourth Century CE, and by that time onwards you get variations in different versions that arise from copying errors. So then if you take all the bits that are in Greek, and the bits in Aramaic, and the bits in Hebrew, and put them all together to find the common language, why is the consensus of the scholars doing this work that the original was written in Greek? That is entirely inconsistent with the author being who you seem to be claiming it was.
Can you provide a source that makes this claim? The only "whole" manuscript we have, is in Greek. However, scholars claim that it is not the original, only a transcribed copy. As for the fragments, written in Aramaic, scholars agree that these fragments are from original copies.
No, I expect evidence not assertion. You are just presenting the traditional view as assertion.
Right. Except that my assertions are found as historically accurate. Found in history. Found in reality.
Go ahead. Check my sources.
Sorry, it's not ad hominem because I wasn't using it as an argument against your claim, it was just an observation. On the other hand, you are using a strawman argument, because I didn't make any claims of higher intellect, I didn't deny anything in particular, and I didn't say that you are any kind of loon, if you care to read those 10 words above.
False. It is ad hominem when you claim that a person is utilizing an argument/claim that they are not (in this case, the claim of me using a strawman) as a means of showing that the person is being intellectually dishonest. Strawman is when you set up a false conclusion or claim, then knock it down. I never did that. But, you use that as a fulcrum for claims of me asserting traditional views, false evidence, etc., without ever giving examples of such.
Granted, on some claims of evidence, you just dismiss it as being false or disproved in some fashion, yet failing to provide any details in support of these dismissions.
You don't know what you are talking about, do you.
This is that attack of character. An excellent example. Claim that I do not know what I am talking about, yet never provide evidence to the contrary. Thus, ad hominem.
Well, don't just tease us. Tell us exactly what helpful input Josephus has, and what can be read from it, and do the same for Lucian.
I did. But, I shall again.
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians has not disappeared." (Source: Josephus,
Antiquities)
Hearsay added in the Second Century by zealots with a motive is not evidence. I hope, when you give your dissertation on Josephus you mention the fact that some of his writing was dishonestly altered by early christians. That is enough evidence on its own to establish motive to rewrite history in favour of a Jesus myth, and therefore to continue to be cautious about any claims made by early christians.
Do you have proofs of hearsay? Do you have proofs of Josephus writings, specifically
Antiquities, being altered?
Hold yourself to the same standard you are holding to me. I have not documented my sources alongside my claims, as I would a dissertation. The fault there is my own. But I did not figure in going into such realms of proof. Yet, when challenged, I am honest enough to rise to it. If I question someone's evidence, I usually can at least suggest where my aggravating evidence comes from.
Probably just addiction to Answers in Genesis.
At least we agree on 6days.
Thank you for the link. That page has this:
The Herodian dynasty began with Herod the Great, who assumed the throne of Judea, with Roman support, bringing down the century long Hasmonean Kingdom. His kingdom lasted until his death in 4 BCE |
Then if you go to here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius you get this:
The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judaea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE |
It then goes on to say:
The author of the Gospel of Luke uses it as the narrative means to establish when Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5),[2] but places the census within the reign of Herod the Great, who died 10 years earlier in 4 BCE.[3] No satisfactory explanation has been put forward to resolve the contradiction,[4] and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake. |
So can
you fix the historical error in the gospels?
But there is aggravating evidence, which points to Herod's son assuming rule and conducting a census (source:
Making of the West). After all, Herod's ruling sons called themselves "Herod."
So, fixing the gospel accounts in unnecessary, when there is evidence that suggests that the historian, Luke, did an adequate job of accurately describing the events of the census.
Yep, I think it is best for you that you don't further comment on ID. Unless you do some more reading. But you will only be disappointed by all kinds of creationism, it's just telling lies for a god.
I won't comment on ID, as it leads off topic. I don't agree with 99% of creationism theories, as they ignore natural evidence.
I read the Wikipedia page on Berlinski, having heard his name quite a few years ago. Looks like he is a fan of a handful of disproved canards of creationism.
Like what? And how were they disproved? Just saying they are does not make them so.
Yep, I did that at school. So I might be able to understand a devastating statistical argument against evolution by natural selection of you put one up. If it is the one I think you have in mind, then I wouldn't bother, but by all means go ahead if you wish.
I was referencing the statistical calculations for the number of genetic and physical changes that a single species would have to undergo to transition from an aerobic land species to an aerobic aquatic species. Such calculations deem it impossible for such changes to occur successfully, given even the most liberal of timelines for the age of the earth.
Carl Linnaeus' system is the one still used for classification. Like most scientists of the 18th Century he defaulted to creationism, so it is not necessary to have Darwin's theory to classify species. But I agree with your point, that in order for your state or country not to be a laughing stock, and to produce graduates from schools and colleges who can work meaningfully in the biological sciences, then indeed it is necessary to teach evolution. It is the central organising principle of all biology.
Another agreement. This is all factual. And I personally use and like the taxonomy system that science uses.
If you think evolution by natural selection is wrong, then because it is a proper scientific theory all you will need is evidence that disproves it. Do you have any?
Do you want to go down this road? If so, I will provide the evidence, with sources, in my reply.
Creationists have been trying and failing since 1859 to actually disprove evolution by natural selection. It is one of the longest standing and most successful theories in all of science; chemistry, physics, astronomy and geology have all been completely revolutionised since then. The theory of natural selection is surprisingly robust and remains the best explanation for the variety of life on earth.
I disagree. But again, if you want my evidence, I will provide it.
Who are you quoting there? You can't make that claim for yourself because you don't understand what the evidence was, if your previous writing is anything to go on.
It was a quote of emphasis, not a direct or personal quote.
If I am going to be honest, I am reaching my threshold for this conversation. I have presented evidence, sources, etc. only to have you just dismiss them as "disproved" or faulty in some capacity. This is the common tactic of a person who does not want to accept credible evidence that disproves their position.
Anytime you have provided a source, I looked at it. I read it. I examined credentials. I compared it with parallel, mitigating, and aggravating sources, to check for authentic historical accuracy. This is just my personal habit that was developed in my educational career. The purpose of this was to always be unbiased and skeptical when reviewing evidence.
Yet time and again, you simply dismiss me as "not knowing what I am talking about." You propose that I am simply making conjecture, based on my traditional view and bias. You do this despite historical sources supporting my claims. My claims are made based on such sources and evidence. This is why we agree on people like 6days, who just spout their ideas, ignoring easily acquired evidence.
If you want to continue, for instance, with the evolution argument, I will. But as far as the historical evidence of Christ, the Bible, etc. I have provided my proof. If you want to ignore factual evidence, you have that right. While I have not exhausted my sources and research, I have just seen a pattern in your responses that shows an immediate dismissal of any claim or proof that goes against your personal bias.
Best of luck, friend.