Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Autumn Reading for Jerry and friends

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email


Japanese maple leaves.

Over at Why Evolution is True, Professor Jerry Coyne has been busy at work. He has not only outlined a scenario that would convince him of God’s existence, but he has written an article entitled On P. Z. Myers on evidence for a god with a point-by-point rebuttal of P. Z. Myers’ assertion (backed up by eight supporting arguments) that there was no amount of evidence that could convince him of the existence of any kind of God. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would like to congratulate Professor Coyne. Let me hasten to add that Professor Coyne is still a convinced atheist. As he writes: “To me, the proper stance is, ‘I haven’t seen a smidgen of evidence for God, so I don’t think he exists. But I suppose it’s a theoretical possibility.'” In the final paragraph of his post, Coyne declares: “I’m writing this post simply to continue a conversation that I don’t think has yet run its course…”

Well, Professor, I’m something of a magpie. I collect good articles. The 200 or so articles I’ve listed below are the “creme-de-la-creme” so to speak, of what’s available on the Web. Taken together, they make a strong cumulative case, on philosophical and empirical grounds, that God does indeed exist, and that the benefits of religion vastly outweigh the multitude of harms inflicted in its name. (There’s even a case where an amputee gets healed! Curious? Thought you might be.) I’ve also included some good articles on God, morality and evil, which will interest you. The arguments for the immateriality of the mind are also significant: they serve to undermine the materialist argument that there can never be a good argument for the existence of an immaterial Intelligence, since all the minds we know of are embodied and complex. Interested? Please read on.

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Philosophical Arguments for God’s existence
Section 2 – Miracles
Section 3 – The Attributes of God
Section 4 – God, Morality, Goodness and Evil
Section 5 – Arguments for the Immateriality of the Mind
Section 6 – Mysteries of the Christian Faith (The Trinity, the Incarnation and the Atonement)
Section 7 – Religion: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

For the list of articles, click here.

Enjoy!

Comments
vjtorley: "Molch has been asking about arguments for the existence of God" No. I haven't. Why does nobody read what I am actually saying? But I have a feeling that I'm not going to get an answer to this question either.molch
November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
“Could there be another possibility to explain the sighting of a man that looks and behaves just like an allegedly dead man?” “Yes. There could be.” Thanks for admitting that much. "the witness of prophecy, the witness of history, and the testimony of changed lives" If you think that your world-view is the only one that lays claim to these categories of witnesses, you know even less about other world-views than I thought. “I believe in xyz based on a propensity of evidence from many sources; including xyz accounts, contemporary xyz testimony to certain facts surrounding the events before and after xyz, the witness of prophecy, the witness of history, and the testimony of changed lives. I don’t have to jump to xyz based on any one factor, I can take them as a whole.” Reincarnationist X is going to tell you something quite like that. And adherent of worldview 1A is going to tell you something quite like that. And adherent of worldview 2A, and, and , and,…. "Could you say the same for reincarnation that the most reasonable explanations for a child’s knowledge of a dead person’s life, when the child obviously has a different body than the dead person, that reincarnation is the best and warranted explanation according to your own world-view assumptions? That is the real issue here. I don’t mean according to the assumptions of someone who would accept reincarnation even if there was no evidence" MY worldview assumptions don't matter here in the least!!!! The world-view assumptions and EVIDENCES of reincarnationist X matter! And you have absolutely NO GROUNDS, none whatsoever, to claim that reincarnationist X CANNOT have just as many, or more, and better, evidence for reincarnation than you have for the resurrection of one man 2000 years ago! You haven’t checked! If reincarnationist X really does witness the scenario I described, and reincarnationist X already has loads of other reasons to believe that reincarnation is true, this evidence is orders of magnitude more convincing than the documentation you can produce for that one resurrection event 2000 years ago. "due to your a priori materialism, you can’t distinguish between more reasonable and warranted “supernatural” claims and less warranted “supernatural” claims. They seem to be all the same to you." And there you go again, making all kinds of un-warranted assumptions. You have no idea if I am a materialist. And IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THE DISCUSSION AT HAND!!!!! I am starting to feel like I am talking to a wall! The reason why I introduced the reincarnation example is because it is one of the HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS or MILLIONS (I don't know, I haven't counted; neither have you) of possible atheist worldviews. That’s why this statement of yours: “With atheism there is no solid foundation. With Christian theism there is.” …is still, and absolutely, and categorically, wrong. You know the reason why I introduced this example. I said so when I did. I really don’t know why you either don’t understand this or pretend that this is not so. The ONLY statement I want you to justify or retract is this: “With atheism there is no solid foundation. With Christian theism there is.” This statement is claiming a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE. Which is exactly why MY world-view does not matter in the least. Even IF you could show that my particular world-view, or the particular world-view of reincarnationist X, cannot be as rigorously defended as yours, that does not get you ANY closer to justifying a universal negative!!!molch
November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Hi everyone, Well, I see that the argument has been raging fiercely in my absence. Molch has been asking about arguments for the existence of God. The links on my page that I would most recommend that he read are the following: A. Modal Cosmological Argument http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/menus/lecture.html http://www.arn.org/docs/koons/cosmo.pdf Also: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/defeasible.html http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Craig-Sobels-Acid-Bath-for-Theism.pdf B. Cosmic Fine-Tuning http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/stanford%20multiverse%20talk.htm http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/ (Scroll down and click on the link to "God and the Laws of Nature." http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf (very good article) http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/dfl23/publications/sober/sober.pdf C. Miracles http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/dfl23/publications/sober/sober.pdf http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec/the-making-of-a-saint/article1757984/ http://www.messengersaintanthony.com/messaggero/pagina_articolo.asp?IDX=171IDRX=55 (PLEASE READ the last paragraph) http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html 4. Attributes of God http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/duns-scotus/#NatThe http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jross/dunsscotus.htm http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8429 http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm 5. Immateriality of the Human Mind http://www.reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/dso/papers/Hylemorphic%20Dualism.pdf http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/ti00/ocallagh.htm http://www.reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/dso/papers/Concepts,%20Dualism%20and%20Human%20Intellect.pdf http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jross/zchap6.htm http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-brief-arguments-for-dualism-part-i.html http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-brief-arguments-for-dualism-part.html http://www.iscid.org/papers/Menuge_DennettDenied_103103.pdf http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve2.html#soul-empirical Well, that's a start.vjtorley
November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
F/N: The point of the rope analogy is that weak, short fibres can mutually reinforce where they come into contact, and in so doing build up a strength that does not depend on the weakness of the individual fibres. But instead the added up strength of the whole is based on how the little strengths of individual fibres are added up and the coherence of the whole through twist and counter-twist that holds them together so they take a mutual grip. Consequently the rope builds on strengths and compensates for weaknesses, achieving a suprisingly powerful overall result. (It is familiarity that makes us take what a rope is for granted, it is a showcase of astonishing technology and design strategy.)kairosfocus
November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
Onlookers (and Molch): I think it is worth the while to reiterate the challenge to address the case for generic theism presented yesterday in comment 207, but pointedly ignored: _________________________ Molch: >> 8 –> Expanding briefly:
a: Worldviews are not subject of deductive proof, as they address matters of fact, so they will be warranted on a cumulative case basis. b: Such an argument works analogously to a rope: thin, short individual fibres are twisted together to make a strand, and several strands are braided or counter-twisted together to form a much longer, stronger rope that depends on the mutual support of the components for its overall strength. c: In short it is a relevant instance of the fallacy of composition to assume or infer that by attacking individual components, one can dispose of a worldview case. d: Instead, one has to embark on the comparative difficulties process across live options, including addressing factual adequacy, coherence, and explanatory power; where, e: something like the resurrection of Jesus in the context of prophecies, if well warranted as fact [and we have argued in the linked above that it is] becomes one of the credible facts that has to be accounted for. f: In that context, we may effectively argue that the observed cosmos is credibly contingent [cf Big Bang], as well as its constituents, which warrants the conclusion that it requires a cause. g: At the root of that chain of cause is a necessary being, with sufficient power and skill to build a cosmos that sits at a fine-tuned operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based life, even through multiverse suggestions [the sub-cosmos bread factory issue . . . what sort of supercosmic bread factory is needed to bake up a rich variety of sub-cosmi instead of the equivalent of a doughy half baked mess of ill-blended ingredients, or a blackened hockey puck of burned ingredients] h: Similarly, such a necessary being is either possible or impossible, but plainly it is not impossible: there is no self-contradiction, and indeed the above warrants that it is necessary as the ground of the contingent world we can see. So arguably the force of necessity acts: there is such a necessary being with the relevant attributes to account for a cosmos and for life including ourselves as minded, conscious, enconscienced creatures. i: That necessary being is implicated by the evident design of life and cosmos, and has the attributes necessary to account for such design: extracosmic, intelligent, very powerful, purposeful, acting as creator. These are of course features of the being we describe as God. j: Going further, as morally bound creatures — something atheists inadvertently acknowledge when they assume the repugnance of evil in mistakenly trying to argue from evil to atheism — a moral universe implies that the ground of its being is an IS that has in it inherent goodness sufficient to ground OUGHT. That is God is moral and specifically good. k: To cap off, starting with the 500+ eyewitnesses of C1, and continuing down to today, millions have personally come to meet and know the Living God in the face of the risen Christ. (And if you are offended by Christian particularism, I suggest you look here as a start.)
9 –> You of course claimed that there is a rich literature in critique of such a cumulative case. What you need to show to us is that that rich literature succeeds, not in showing what was never at issue — that it is possible to reject such arguments by challenging premises and dismissing facts — but that on comparative difficulties, your atheism is a superior conclusion, including in the implications of alternative premises to the rejected ones. 10 –> In particular, do not forget that if the human mind is so delusional that the millions across time who claim to have met and been transformed by God are deluded, then on what alternative grounds can you trust your mind not to be deluded when it arrives at atheistical, evolutionary materialistic conclusions? _________________ I think the ball is now in your court. >> _________________________ So, Molch, could you kindly provide us a summary or a link -- at least, one better than Stenger's seminar -- on why it is that you concluded that the above fails by comparative difficulties contrast with [evolutionary materialistic] atheism on points of logic, science and philosophy? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
CY Thanks for pulling the matter back on track. It is highly significant that after well past 100 comments on the main matter that cropped up in response to the OP's focus on putting up warranting information in response to Neo Atheist skepticism, we have seen no serious attempt to support the claim that "scientific" evolutionary materialistic atheism is the best explanation for the world as we experience it. The resort to side-tracks and attempts to discredit other views, and the level of arguments being used when we go out and find actual skeptical writings is further telling. (I still shake my head when I think of the caricatures of the cosmological argument we have seen above. The distortions and evasions in response to the general design inference are a longstanding notorious point in this blog, as the weak argument correctives document.) Above, as well, we can see an utter failure to engage seriously the point of an inference to best explanation chain of reasoning. Namely, the issue is not that one can construct any number of far-fetched possible reconstructions [recall, if you selectively hyperskeptically reject what you should bolieve on evidence and reason, that also means that somewhere you accept what is not well-warranted . . . ], but that they are to be compared on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power and the best warranted explanation is the one that shows itself superior on such facts, coherence and explanatory power. That Jesus fulfilled then centuries old OT prophecies in his life and service, leading many to see him as messiah is beyond reasonable doubt. That he was taken by the authorities, unjustly mistried and put to death on power games is also beyond reasonable doubt. That there were a reported 500+ eyewitnesses to his being raised form death in the very same body that had been so wickedly mistreated, with some 20 of them identified, is a matter of eyewitness lifetime record. And only the impact of those reported eyewitnesses can account for the dynamism of the church and its witness in the teeth of determined opposition by the powers that were. The usual deist-skeptical objections popular in C18 - 19 have long since fallen apart on want of explanatory scope, coherence and power: swoons, mass hallucinations, wrong tomb, stolen body and fraud etc. Today's favourites ring off sincere but delusional apostles and an uncritical circle of disciples, which simply cannot account for the empty tomb or the conversion of skeptics like James and others in Jesus' family, or the arch persecutor Saul of Tarsus. Not to mention, real hallucinatory visions just do not fit the pattern that would be required and cannot account for that undeniably empty tomb and otherwise "missing" body. This was no conjuring trick with a bag of bones. And we can observe the extremely significant point of what happened when I pointed out above what happened when that former persecutor turned leading missionary was on trial for his life in the Roman capital for the jurisdiction, before the client-king, C 59 AD. Paul called the king as his chief witness for the defense, on grounds that the matter was undeniably public knowledge: it was not done in a corner. The king, well aware of the political implications, could only give an evasive, side-tracking answer. And, lo and behold, in this very thread, we see the exact same rhetorical resort. (BTW, let us get it right: the real Hindu doctrine is transmigration of souls, hence sacred cows, sacred rats etc. The doctrine was repackaged in the late C19, when it was discovered that that which with Karma serves as the account for being in this vale of [apparent] tears -- remember, the linked doctrine Maya, illusion -- could give a hope of after death survival to those temped to believe evolutionary materialist skepticism. Seen any warrant recently that the rat in the glue trap is old great uncle Fred come back to pay the price of his dalliance with those servant girls? For that matter, CY, you are precisely right to highlight that there cannot be a stronger case for claimed reincarnation than for the resurrection of Jesus. Especially, given that -- on the authoritative testimony of the one who credibly did rise from death -- there is reason to note that there is evidence for deceitful spirits out there. A child with claimed past life memories, or a medium -- and we are warned against trafficking with such spirits -- is inherently extremely vulnerable to being misled. I think the one who was prophesied 700 years before hand, fulfilled it, and with 500+ eyewitnesses is inherently a lot more credible on comparative difficulties than the sorts of speculations and stories we see above and elsewhere to try to sustain reincarnation [repackaged transmigration of souls]. And, in this thread's context the rhetorical purpose of that contrast is to try to suggest that the degree of warrant is comparable, and comparably bad: two empty sets may conflict but both are false. But the direct evidence is that the set of the eternally resurrected has at least one member.) For that matter, when above I at length presented a cumulative theistic argument, the answer was avoidance and side-tracking. Methinks that tells us that the objectors to the theistic inference on evidence are most reluctant to have their own assumptions and reasoning publicly scrutinised. That is a very important take-away lesson for this thread. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 5, 2010
November
11
Nov
5
05
2010
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT
molch, I started writing this response, then I decided to submit my last two responses. I'll go ahead and submit this one as well, because I think it leads us in the right direction: "I am showing you that even an incredibly convincing piece of evidence can be interpreted in a million different ways." Well I don't believe you've shown me anything, but simply because evidence CAN be interpreted in a million different ways does not imply that it reasonably should. I gather that you've come up with an explanation for the resurrection, which convinces you that it didn't happen. Perhaps this is a good place to continue the discussion. However, I think an even better place to continue would be for you to show us your argument against the existence of God. It is, after all, your disbelief in God, which would obviously discredit in your thinking any claims of resurrections or reincarnations or what have you. However (and in the interest of brevity) I will briefly summarize some key points regarding the resurrection. these are not so much the arguments themselves, but the key points of a larger argument: "Could there be another possibility to explain the sighting of a man that looks and behaves just like an allegedly dead man?" Yes. There could be. Jesus could have convinced others that he was dead and tricked them into believing that he was alive. Someone could have arranged to have a man who looked like him die on the cross for him. He could have survived the crucifixion, or any number of other possibilities. The issue here is what is the best credible and reasonable explanation based on the witness accounts. There are a number of problems with the resurrection. None of us has stated that there are not. But when you consider the entire account of Jesus' last days and the time after the crucifixion, there is more weighty evidence to suggest that he was resurrected than that some other elaborate scheme was concocted in order to fake the resurrection. Many people have written very lengthy books concerning these issues, and there is much detail. Frank Morrison's was written 80 years ago, and is perhaps the most famous of these. http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/product-reviews/1850786747/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending Consider Morrison's thorough working of just such alternatives. But one of the more recent books that I find even more in-depth on these issues is Gary Habermas and Michael Licona's "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288928442&sr=1-1 And you might want to look into Licona's even more recent book: "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach" (which I haven't yet read): http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288928320&sr=1-1 In the following I'm summarizing Habermas and Licona: The sources outside the New Testament, which attest to the fact of the crucifixion are as follows: Josephus Tacitus Lucian Mara Bar-Serapion The Talmud Now in these, and even the agreement of most scholarly skeptics of the resurrection, we come to some basic facts: 1) Jesus died by crucifixion. That is a fact, which no reasonable scholar denies by the evidence, both internally from the scriptures themselves, and externally by extra-biblical account. So a premise, which suggests that Jesus somehow faked his death, or that the witnesses to the crucifixion and the resurrection should somehow be mistaken as to the identity of the person they saw alive after the crucifixion, needs to take that fact into account. He did not fake his death, so he could not by any natural means appear to the disciples after his death. This leaves problems regarding claims of the resurrection, but it does at least reasonably challenge the question of his death. 2) The disciples believed that the resurrected Jesus appeared to them, and they claimed such in written accounts, that he spoke to them, showed them the piercings in his side and the nail marks in his hands, he ate with them, and explained many things to them over the course of days. This is another fact, which most scholars, even skeptical scholars do not dispute - that they believed he rose and appeared to them. And we can add onto this fact, the conversions of 3) Paul, the former persecutor of the Christians, and 4) James, the brother of Jesus (attested to in Josephus). 5) The tomb was empty. I personally believe that the empty tomb was one of the most significant factors, which attest to the resurrection. If someone went to the tomb the next day and discovered the body of Jesus, given that this event occurred in Jerusalem, the center of Judaism and of the Roman presence in Palestine at the time, such information would most certainly have been announced publicly and the stories of the resurrection easily discounted and buried. Such is not the case. ------ Now in the next chapter Habermas and Licona cover other explanations regarding these facts. Rather than summarize, let's hear your version or your dispute with these points.CannuckianYankee
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
molch, Could you say the same for reincarnation that the most reasonable explanations for a child's knowledge of a dead person's life, when the child obviously has a different body than the dead person, that reincarnation is the best and warranted explanation according to your own world-view assumptions? That is the real issue here. I don't mean according to the assumptions of someone who would accept reincarnation even if there was no evidence, but for a person who believes that there is no "supernatural." Would reincarnation be the more reasonable conclusion in that case? If you say yes, why? Either way, it is your world-view assumptions, which really need examining in this case, because apparently due to your a priori materialism, you can't distinguish between more reasonable and warranted "supernatural" claims and less warranted "supernatural" claims. They seem to be all the same to you. But enough about reincarnation. It is really a sidestepping hypothetical issue meant to draw attention away from the evidence for belief in God and Christianity. I'm not really interested in hypothetical speculation because pretty much anything can be speculated, and we end up going nowhere. A person can have a solid foundation for belief in Christ without one bit of consideration of other competing claims, and I stand on that foundation. Furthermore, it makes sense that God in his wisdom would provide us with just such evidence as a light shining in a dark place, where competing truth claims abound. We contend that God's purpose for us is to know truth, which can be known; truth about God, truth about ourselves, and truth about our relationship with Him. Without a solid foundation for that truth, there really is nothing that can be called truth. With atheism there is no solid foundation. With Christian theism there is. And one of the glaring issues of atheists is the charge that Christians merely force the evidence to support their views - which seems to be what you are suggesting. This is a strikingly blatant disregard for the evidence. If the evidence supports the views of Christians, maybe it's because the views of Christians are true - rather than that the evidence has been in any way forced to fit.CannuckianYankee
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
Molch, "What makes one jump from that evidence to resurrection?" I believe in the resurrection based on a propensity of evidence from many sources; including the scriptural accounts, contemporary extra-biblical testimony to certain facts surrounding the events before and after the resurrection, the witness of prophecy, the witness of history, and the testimony of changed lives. I don't have to jump to the resurrection based on any one factor, I can take them as a whole, because they fit together mutually and harmoniously to form a very valid, compelling and warranted conclusion - compare KF's rope. "Could there be another possibility to explain the sighting of a man that looks and behaves just like an allegedly dead man?" Yes, there certainly could be other explanations. But the most reasonable explanation based on the propensity of evidence I just mentioned, is that the resurrection occurred as witnessed and recounted. "I’d have to say, for someone who claims to be a skeptic of most supernatural events (all those which don’t conform with the Christian doctrine), you’re quite easily led." Well no, I'm not easily led. I believe there is a warranted difference between the propensity of evidence for the resurrection of Christ and the weak evidence (which can only be so) for reincarnation. I've already stated reasonably why this is so based on the issue of bodily person identity, which is present with the resurrection and absent with reincarnation. You attempted to shift the issue of bodily person identity onto the resurrection, which by the evidence of scripture alone, no reasonable person would do. That you don't recognize the difference between these two very important distinctions is very telling of the selectively hyper-skeptical tactics you employ in order to score points as is pointedly so in this statement: "You fell right into it." I fell into nothing. I stated my points quite reasonably and I stand firm in my position. The burden is on you, the challenger to reasonably show where I am wrong. You haven't done so here. Furthermore, you continue to refrain from providing us with any warrant for your own beliefs.CannuckianYankee
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
Molch: Cf here also. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
"For the resurrection there were over 500 witnesses to one event." What makes one jump from that evidence to resurrection? Could there be another possibility to explain the sighting of a man that looks and behaves just like an allegedly dead man? I’d have to say, for someone who claims to be a skeptic of most supernatural events (all those which don't conform with the Christian doctrine), you’re quite easily led. Maybe the man is a ghost that looks extraordinarily corporeal. Or a magician created the walking, talking, real-looking image of the man, or better yet: actually brought the man back to life. Or the witnesses involved had a really good reason to lie about what they really saw (this was 2000 years ago, we can't even interview anyone there anymore). Or, or ,or, or,.......We’re dealing with an extraordinary claim. Therefore it becomes just as logical with such a claim to infer a huge variety of other physical/metaphysical explanations without having to jump to the conclusion of Resurrection. "I’d have to say, for someone who claims to be a skeptic of supernatural events, you’re quite easily led." You fell right into it. I am showing you that even an incredibly convincing piece of evidence can be interpreted in a million different ways. And by the way, you still haven't justified the universal negative of your claim, that is completely separate from the resurrection/reincarnation issue. But I'll leave it at that.molch
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
KF, It's OK, I could go on with the strawman used against me, but frankly I'm getting a little tired, as I'm sure mulch is and others too. At some point one has to deal with the real evidence rather than alleged evidence, or in recent cases, hypothetical evidence. What I'm waiting for is some real and direct charges against the evidence for the resurrection, or the generic evidence for the existence of God - as I'm sure we are all anticipating, but as we have already seen thus far, such charges don't appear to be forthcoming.CannuckianYankee
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
molch, I thought of just such a scenario as well. You are still dealing with the identity of bodies vs. knowledge, which for an alleged soul suspension occurrence, could come from anywhere. What makes one jump from that evidence to reincarnation? Could there be another possibility to explain the child's knowledge? I'd have to say, for someone who claims to be a skeptic of supernatural events, you're quite easily led. Maybe the child has ESP and can sense the information on the documents, or can read the mind of a person who has knowledge of the documents. We're dealing with an extraordinary claim. Therefore it becomes just as logical with such a claim to infer ESP or some other form of perception such as clairvoyance without having to jump to the conclusion of Reincarnation. You see, you have done exactly with this what you're charging me of doing. I said that Reincarnation cannot be reasonably warranted in the same way as the resurrection - with the force of the warrant for the resurrection. Sure, you could show that a child has knowledge of something that he/she should or possibly could not have knowledge of, but there are still things to rule out with this evidence. You don't simply jump to "Ahah! Reincarnation! Maybe the ghost of the dead person communicated to the child giving him/her the information - maybe the child is clairvoyant, or has ESP, or came upon the information in some other manner unknown to the participants. It would not, and cannot be as compelling as that provided for with the resurrection. Further, in this scenario you're dealing with just one alleged witness - the child him/herself. Others who knew the dead person are not witnesses, just participants. OK, the documents themselves could be a witness, but they can be a witness for something entirely different than reincarnation. For the resurrection there were over 500 witnesses to one event. Even if there are 500 people who all claim to have been reincarnated, each claim would have to be taken as a separate event. With the resurrection there are exponentially more witnesses, which makes the likelihood of false witness much less likely. Therefore, you still have no leading information, which would necessitate a conclusion of reincarnation. With the resurrection there is no question - Jesus was dead, confirmed as so, buried, not found at the burial site, and later found alive and communicating with those who knew him, mentioning things he told them before his death, and further fulfilling prophecy from 1000 years prior. There is no reasonable alternative based on the evidence other than that he rose from the dead.CannuckianYankee
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Molch: Kindly cf here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
CY: “I have no knowledge of other attempts to prove reincarnation. However, this is besides the point. The issue is not in other evidence, but the nature of any alleged evidence – you still have the same problem with trying to show that a person with one body is the exact same person as one with another body.” And: “the differences between the specifics of the truth claims make one more compelling than the other based on the evidence provided for one, and the impossibility of similar evidence for the other” So, after looking at some possible evidence for re-incarnation, you have concluded that the particular evidence is categorically less compelling than the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection because of bodily identity in the latter case versus different bodies in the former. Let me show you why you are completely mistaken to claim that, because of your conlcusion, that there is “impossibility of similar evidence for [reincarnation]”. Here is a scenario that could provide objective, directly observable evidence for the truth of a child’s claim to be the re-incarnated soul of a known dead person: Child X claims that it is the re-born person Y. The investigator finds documents connected to the life of now deceased Y. These documents and their contents have been unknown to child X or any of its associates, and this circumstance can be proven. These documents (e.g. a diary) contain unique information about the life of Y that are impossible (or very unlikely, especially in their combination) to be known through different means than either the documents themselves or having been present at the events described in the documents. The investigator questions child X about this unique information about the life of Y. The child can accurately convey the unique information about the life of Y contained in the documents, down to the smallest detail. If a scenario like this, where it is perfectly possible that you yourself could be the investigator and witness the evidence every step of the way, does not count as the possibility for extremely compelling evidence for re-incarnation to you, I think we might as well stop talking altogether, because we are obviously from different planets. I even feel justified here to speculate that this category of evidence is orders of magnitude more compelling than any documents in support of an event that occurred 2000 years ago that you could come up with. But that is indeed besides the point. However, I have just shown you that: “I have no knowledge of other attempts to prove reincarnation. However, this is besides the point” …is obvioulsy not besides the point at all, but exactly the crux of your argument. I have just shown you that your claim of “impossibility of similar evidence for [reincarnation]” is false. You were simply not aware that there is at least one possibility. And that was just me coming up with a simple obvious one after pondering the issue for half a minute. I suspect there are 2 or 3 or dozens or hundreds of other compelling avenues of evidence for reincarnation. And then, besides reincarnation, there are uncounted other truth claims (hundreds of which neither you nor I have ever even heard of) of other worldviews. So how could you possibly claim any longer that “the differences between the specifics of the truth claims make one more compelling than the other based on the evidence provided for one, and the IMPOSSIBILITY of similar evidence for the other” for ANY competing truth claim? Your categorical claim is already wrong for one single example - I hope that you can see that your case for universal dismissal is hopeless. If you still cannot, I don't think it makes any sense for me to keep trying to show you. So, this will likely be my last comment to this thread. Regardless if we agree or disagree in the end, thanks for an insightful exchange. The invitation to e-mail me if you are interested in any particulars of my actual world-view remains open.molch
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
PS: Such as that responsible for he decay constant that causes a population of radioactive nuclei to decay according to a definite collective law.kairosfocus
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
CY: Traversing an infinite sequence of finite-duration past events [take Planck-time events as a handy yardstick, or the fastest particle interactions] to reach the present is indeed a serious challenge. (Infinite sets in Math are not defined by successive steps but all at once, even when set builder notation is used to suggest how in principle they can be built.) But equally, when something has a beginning we need to ask: why did it NOT happen up to that time? ANS: because at least one necessary causal factor that pushed it across the sufficient causal threshold was not in place. [Think, fuel and air together, but no spark of heat, no fire. Even, when a random variable is acting in some way, leading to a statistically distributed outcome.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
molch, Re: 208 Which is why the cosmological argument begins with the premise: Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. It is the only premise that can logically escape the absurdity of an infinite regress of causes. So it's not simply an assumption by theists in order to posit God.CannuckianYankee
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
PS: Oops on the accidental double post of the cite. In retirement, VS is actually an adjunct prof of phil in Colorado. "Mi cyaan' believe it."kairosfocus
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
F/N: Let's take up the very first exchange between strawman Theist and Atheist used by Stenger: ________________ >> T: Where did the universe come from? A: Why did it have to come from anything? T: Everything has to come from something. A: Then, you tell me. Where did the universe came from? T: The universe came from God. A: Where did God come from? T: God did not have to come from anything. He always was. A: Then everything does not have to come from something after all. Perhaps the universe always was. >> __________________ a --> Stenger here first ducks the fact that he observed universe credibly had a beginning, so is credibly contingent and credibly has a cause. b --> He of course -- without acknowledging that this concept is justified by the cosmological argument he would reject -- alludes to the possibility of a necessary being with no beginning that thus does not need a cause. c --> This is an unfortunately common atheistical debating tactic: stating a point of AGREEMENT with the theistic case as though it is a refutation. d --> Similarly, S here fails to acknowledge that the issue is not whether there is a necessary being, but of what character, and how warranted relative to what we know. e --> He is by implication arguing for an underlying cosmos as a whole in which our observed cosmos has bubbled up by some fluctuation, and so happens to have the relevant physics and parameters set to a fine tuned operating point that is fitted to C-chemistry cell based life. That is, he has to explain the cosmos baking factory. f --> By ducking the linked issues of cosmological design [notice the game of refutation in isolation] he is able to avoid addressing the question of alternative possible necessary beings. (And he is able to avoid the issue that he is here discussing speculative metaphysics, so should be addressing comparative difficulties of alternatives.) g --> Notice as well the strawman tactic put in T's mouth, to set up a rhetorical contradiction to imply utter ignorance and/or stupidity: "Everything has to come from something . . . . God did not have to come from anything. He always was." h --> Stenger knows or should know that the actual informed theistic view is that THAT WHICH HAS A BEGINNING OR MAY GO OUT OF EXISTENCE (i.e. is contingent) has a cause; and that the cosmological argument then very properly infers from a world of contingent beings that is itself also credibly contingent to a necessary, self-sufficient being that is non-contingent and does not have a cause. i --> This caricature, frankly, is inexcusable and rhetorically dishonest.
Remember, it was presented by Vic Stenger, an emeritus physics prof, with the prefatory remark: "A seminar series held in 2002 for atheists, freethinkers and their guests sponsored by the Boulder Atheists, Atheists and Freethinkers of Denver, Freeethinkers of Colorado Springs, and Atheists of Northern Colorado. The goal of the series was to provide nonbelievers with arguments, on a high intellectual plane, that can be use to counter the standard arguments of believers. These counter arguments could be used in personal conversations with theists or in writing thoughtful letters to the editor.A seminar series held in 2002 for atheists, freethinkers and their guests sponsored by the Boulder Atheists, Atheists and Freethinkers of Denver, Freeethinkers of Colorado Springs, and Atheists of Northern Colorado. The goal of the series was to provide nonbelievers with arguments, on a high intellectual plane, that can be use to counter the standard arguments of believers. These counter arguments could be used in personal conversations with theists or in writing thoughtful letters to the editor.")
j --> This sort of deceitfully misrepresenting rhetoric presented by so highly educated and experienced a person as training to educate the public is simply inexcusable. _______________ M, what can you say about cases like the above? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
CY: Yup. I went further looking for atheological arguments, and came up on a video that purported to be a 4 - 5 minute refutaiton. Sadly, that video ran in the circle of asserting delusion baswed on no evidence, and that if one is certain of one's beliefs, one is delusional. But s/he does not even know the difference between moral certainty and demonstrable certainty on warrant vs delusional closed mindedness. I suggest that he poster of that video needs to spend a few hours working through the briefing note on selective hyperskepticism, starting with the introduction, the excerpt from Simon Greenleaf and section A, with a particular focus on the fallacies of the closed ideologised mind and turnabout accusation. A look in a mirror will help. Then, I took a look at this seminar by Stenger. Right out the starting gates, this presenter does not understand what self-evidence is, so he is in trouble with the first principles of right reason. Similarly, he does not seem to understand the point that all worldviews have difficulties, so that the issue is not whether one may challenge or deny theistic premises, but what happens to your worldview as a whole when you have to embed such denials in its core. So, the proper method is level playing field comparative analysis of worldviews on their difficulties. He also needs to take time to think about how a rope works, and what this has to teach us about cumulative cases. Confidence being lost at the outset, I shook my head. (Recall, how M struggled above with the concept that when we objectively -- even where this is provisionally so -- know something, that is because (i) we accept it as so [= believe it] on (ii) being warranted and thus (iii) credibly true.) Let us see how M gets on with the challenge to warrant his atheism, and the linked challenge to address the cumulative argument I have presented in outline in 205. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT
F/N: Molch, being accurate to the warranted facts and truth about our world is not a violation of epistemological humility. Nor, is insistence on the need for such warrant. Nor, is provision of such warrant -- unless you are willing to argue that our reasoning capacity is inherently so delusional as to be incapable of grounding well warranted truth, which is self-referentially incoherent. (And I have provided reasons for the challenge that evolutionary materialism is indeed both self-referentially incoherent and radically relativist about both knowledge and morality: there is no truth and no right beyond what one concludes personally is true or right for him or her. Down that road lies utter self-referential incoherence and amorality. (Which is precisely what evolutionary materialism has stood indicted for ever since Plato's The Laws Bk X, 360 BC.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
8 --> Expanding briefly:
a: Worldviews are not subject of deductive proof, as they address matters of fact, so they will be warranted on a cumulative case basis. b: Such an argument works analogously to a rope: thin, short individual fibres are twisted together to make a strand, and several strands are braided or counter-twisted together to form a much longer, stronger rope that depends on the mutual support of the components for its overall strength. c: In short it is a relevant instance of the fallacy of composition to assume or infer that by attacking individual components, one can dispose of a worldview case. d: Instead, one has to embark on the comparative difficulties process across live options, including addressing factual adequacy, coherence, and explanatory power; where, e: something like the resurrection of Jesus in the context of prophecies, if well warranted as fact [and we have argued in the linked above that it is] becomes one of the credible facts that has to be accounted for. f: In that context, we may effectively argue that the observed cosmos is credibly contingent [cf Big Bang], as well as its constituents, which warrants the conclusion that it requires a cause. g: At the root of that chain of cause is a necessary being, with sufficient power and skill to build a cosmos that sits at a fine-tuned operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based life, even through multiverse suggestions [the sub-cosmos bread factory issue . . . what sort of supercosmic bread factory is needed to bake up a rich variety of sub-cosmi instead of the equivalent of a doughy half baked mess of ill-blended ingredients, or a blackened hockey puck of burned ingredients] h: Similarly, such a necessary being is either possible or impossible, but plainly it is not impossible: there is no self-contradiction, and indeed the above warrants that it is necessary as the ground of the contingent world we can see. So arguably the force of necessity acts: there is such a necessary being with the relevant attributes to account for a cosmos and for life including ourselves as minded, conscious, enconscienced creatures. i: That necessary being is implicated by the evident design of life and cosmos, and has the attributes necessary to account for such design: extracosmic, intelligent, very powerful, purposeful, acting as creator. These are of course features of the being we describe as God. j: Going further, as morally bound creatures -- something atheists inadvertently acknowledge when they assume the repugnance of evil in mistakenly trying to argue from evil to atheism -- a moral universe implies that the ground of its being is an IS that has in it inherent goodness sufficient to ground OUGHT. That is God is moral and specifically good. k: To cap off, starting with the 500+ eyewitnesses of C1, and continuing down to today, millions have personally come to meet and know the Living God in the face of the risen Christ. (And if you are offended by Christian particularism, I suggest you look here as a start.)
9 --> You of course claimed that there is a rich literature in critique of such a cumulative case. What you need to show to us is that that rich literature succeeds, not in showing what was never at issue -- that it is possible to reject such arguments by challenging premises and dismissing facts -- but that on comparative difficulties, your atheism is a superior conclusion, including in the implications of alternative premises to the rejected ones. 10 --> In particular, do not forget that if the human mind is so delusional that the millions across time who claim to have met and been transformed by God are deluded,t hen on what alternative grounds can you trust your mind not to be deluded when it arrives at atheistical, evolutionary materialistic conclusions? _________________ I think the ball is now in your court. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
Molch: It is by now pretty well clear that you do not have a cogent case for your "concluded [scientifically, logically and philosophically grounded] truth" of atheism that you are confident in and willing to publicly state and defend. In that context of refusing to engage the project of comparative difficulties on a level playing field basis, your attempts to equate the warrant for the resurrection of Jesus -- without actually addressing even the 101 level presentation of the positive case that has been repeatedly linked -- to the evidence for any or all other possible alternatives, is revealed as a rhetorical side-track. Similarly, when above, you tried to separate knowledge from its reasonable definition as warranted, credibly true belief, it threw serious questions across your claims to have sufficiently investigated the cumulative philosophical case for generic theism to have warrant to dismiss it. In that context, your continued attempts to dismiss or discredit come across as the well-known skeptical habit of being always on the attack, which distracts even such skeptics from the need to warrant their own implicit or explicit system of thought. So, it is time to call for a bit of balance: 1 --> I have already linked yet again today on the positive case for the Christian faith. 2 --> On the wider question of the warrant for a design oriented view of origins science, I (again) link here. 3 --> Summaries have been presented several times, on the point that dFSCI is a reliable signature of design, and is found in the cell. Once Lewontin-style a priori evolutionary materialist blinkers are removed, it is warranted to conclude that life is designed, and that major body plan innovations are also designed. Design implies designer, though this does not by itself point to a designer within or beyond the cosmos. 4 --> Similarly, current cosmological evidence points to the physics of our observed cosmos being set at a fine-tuned operating point, on dozens of conditions, and thus to design by an extra-cosmic, powerful, sophisticated, skilled and knowledgeable designer. 5 --> in addition, as I have documented in my recent UD post here and in the onward page, the "science" you appeal to is naturalism, which is evolutionary materialistic, thus question begging and self-referentially incoherent because it undermines the credibility of the very minds that are required to think evolutionary materialistic thoughts. 6 --> Your repeated ignoring of the case summarised in 2 - 5 just above does not make the point go away, nor your need to cogently answer it if you are to sustain the claim that your atheistic view is based on science. The onward linked in 5 just above shows that the claim that your case is based on logic, also credibly fails: that which is question-begging and self referentially incoherent is not logically well warranted. And, that is the fate of evolutionary materialism, a key component of "scientific" atheism. 7 --> Moving up to worldview level [thus moving on from science and logic to broader phil issues], I contend that not only is a design view well warranted, but that on a cumulative case basis, generic theism is also well warranted. [ . . . ]kairosfocus
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
KF, molch: "I reject the existence of the Judeao-Christian god based on the incompatibility with my beliefs and concluded truths about the world." Very telling. Only the issue here is that the Judeo-Christian God presents evidence, which is incompatible with his stated a priori world-view. Interesting also that I (and I'm certain others here) rest my (our) faith in God on the evidence he has placed in nature, scripture, prophecy, changed lives, evidence from physical relics, verified miracles, the effect of Christianity on history and culture, law and foremost, on the principles of right reason. So it's not an issue of merely rejecting other faiths because they are incompatible with scripture; it's an issue of a propensity of evidence God has provided for the Christian faith. Faith for us then truly is "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) How do you have evidence of things not seen? Simple; by things that are seen: "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20) These two passages sum up what Christian faith is. It isn't a blind faith, but a faith based on visible evidence of invisible things. One wonders what visible evidence molch has for the non-existence of God other than that belief in God is incompatible with a priori materialism. So I guess he's right in a way. He isn't like all the other atheists I mentioned. He doesn't base his faith in the non-existence of God on no evidence for God, but on his a priori materialism. But wait a minute - before I give it all away here; isn't it necessarily an assumption by a priori materialism that there can be no evidence for God? Hmm - back to Lewontin I guess.CannuckianYankee
November 4, 2010
November
11
Nov
4
04
2010
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
BA: Molch, by his own declaration, has "concluded" atheism, cf. my remarks and the excerpts [from 125 and 53] at 129 above. Gkairosfocus
November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
further notes molch: Now that the flawed carbon dating is finally brought into line, all major lines of evidence now converge and establish the Shroud as authentic. This rigidly tested, and scrutinized, artifact establishes the uniqueness of the Shroud among all ancient artifacts of man found on earth. I know of no other ancient artifact, from any other culture, which has withstood such intense scrutiny and still remained standing in its claim of divine origin. It is apparent God thought this event so important for us to remember that He took a “photograph” of the resurrection of Jesus Christ using the Shroud itself as a medium. After years of painstaking research, searching through every materialistic possibility, scientists still cannot tell us exactly how the image of the man on the Shroud was imprinted. How Did The Image Form On The Shroud? - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045581 "The shroud image is made from tiny fibres that are (each) 1/10th of a human hair. The picture elements are actually randomly distributed like the dots in your newspaper, photograph or magazine photograph. To do this you would need an incredibly accurate atomic laser. This technology does NOT exist (even to this day)." Kevin Moran - Optical Engineer "the closest science can come to explaining how the image of the Man in the Shroud got there is by comparing the situation to a controlled burst of high-intensity radiation similar to the Hiroshima bomb explosion which "printed" images of incinerated people on building walls." Frank Tribbe - Leading Scholar And Author On Shroud Research This following video, which I've listed previously, and article give fairly deep insight into what the image formation on the Shroud signifies for us: The Center Of The Universe Is Life! - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 This following recent video revealed a very surprising holographic image that was found on the Shroud: Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041205 Even with the advantage of all our advanced space-age technology at their fingertips, all scientists can guess is that it was some type of electro-magnetic radiation (light) which is not natural to this world. Kevin Moran, a scientist working on the mysterious '3D' nature of the Shroud image, states the 'supernatural' explanation this way: "It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was "lifted cleanly" from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state." http://www.shroudstory.com/natural.htm If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the "3D - photographic negative" image I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright 'Light' or 'Being of Light' who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of 'The Being of Light' while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the 'The Being of Light' they were in the presence of is none other than 'The Lord God Almighty' of heaven and earth. In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The NDE of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560 It should be noted: All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with 'The Being Of Light' and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's save for the few pleasant children's NDEs of those cultures that I've seen (It seems there is indeed an 'age of accountability'). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE's: Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm Bill Wiese - 23 Minutes In Hell - High Quality http://vimeo.com/16155839 Another very interesting point about the Shroud is, since the Shroud had to be extremely close to the body when the image was made, and also considering the lack of any distinctive shadow patterns on the image, it is apparent the only place this supernatural light could have possibly come from, that made the image on the Shroud, was directly from the body itself ! Yes, you read that last sentence right: THE SOURCE OF LIGHT WAS THE BODY ITSELF !!! God's crowning achievement for this universe was not when He created this universe. God’s crowning achievement for this universe was when He Himself inhabited the human body He had purposely created the whole universe for, to sanctify human beings unto Himself through the death and resurrection of his “Son” Jesus Christ. This is truly something which should fill anyone who reads this with awe. The wonder of it all is something I can scarcely begin to understand much less write about. Thus, I will finish this portion of my paper with a scripture. Hebrews 2:14-15 "Since we, God's children, are human beings - made of flesh and blood - He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread."bornagain77
November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
molch, I really don't know your personal beliefs about theism atheism pantheism and all, but it seems to me that since Christianity actually offers tangible physical proof that Christ rose from the dead, besides personal witnesses, and that death should be a fairly large concern to you, as it should be to all who are born on this earth since we all must face death, then you should at least be willing to investigate the evidence with a somewhat open, but guarded, mind so as to ascertain if this is actually true. Especially since the promise at the basis of accepting Christ into your life is so huge, i.e. Eternal life promised to you by the Creator of heaven and earth,, for whom it is impossible to be untrue to His promise through Christ!!! notes: A fact that I always found to argue very strongly for Christianity. The fact is that, as I've heard said by many preachers before, you can go to the graves of all the other founders of all the other major religions of the world and find the remains of a body, yet, as the Shroud of Turin stubbornly testifies despite many attempts to refute the Shroud’s authenticity, if you go to the tomb of Jesus you will not find the remains of a body because Jesus has risen from the dead. Matthew 28:5-6 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Burial places of founders of world religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_places_of_founders_of_world_religions The Shroud of Turin is one of the most scientifically scrutinized artifacts in recorded history. Through a rigid process of elimination, through all materialistic possibilities, it becomes crystal clear; the way in which the photographic negative, and uniquely three dimensional, image of the man on the Shroud of Turin had to be imprinted was 'supernatural' in its process. The Turin Shroud - Comparing Image And Photographic Negative - interactive webpage (Of note: The finding that the image on the Shroud is indeed a photographic negative is still as much a mystery today as when it was first discovered by Secondo Pia in 1898.) http://www.shroud.com/shrdface.htm Shroud Of Turin's Unique 3 Dimensionality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041182 All attempts to reproduce the Shroud fail: Experts Question Scientist’s Claim of Reproducing Shroud of Turin - Oct 6, 2009 http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=98037# Many solid lines of evidence pointed to the Shroud’s authenticity back in the 1980’s, yet the carbon dating of 1989 indicated a medieval age. In spite of many other, more reliable, lines of evidence establishing the Shroud as authentic, many people unquestionably accepted the carbon dating as valid and presumed the Shroud to be a medieval fake. THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE - Evidence of Authenticity http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html Shroud Of Turin - Sewn From Two Pieces - 2000 Years Old - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109101 The Sudarium of Oviedo http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm In a fairly recent breakthrough, the carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford in 2000. Their research, with textile experts, showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud which was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s had much historical, and photographic, evidence behind it. Their historical, and photographic, evidence was then scientifically confirmed by chemical analysis in 2005 by Raymond Rogers. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1989 carbon testing has been accepted across the board scientifically. New Evidence Overturns Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4222339 The following is the main peer reviewed paper which has refuted the 1989 Carbon Dating: Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years. Rogers passed away shortly after publishing this paper, but his work was ultimately verified by the Los Alamos National Laboratory: Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today. This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report and video which completely confirms the Rogers' paper: “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008) Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case....... LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. Robert Villarreal Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review - Robert Villarreal - Press Release video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041193bornagain77
November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
molch, I really don't know your personal beliefs about theism atheism pantheism and all, but it seems to me that since Christianity actually offers tangible physical proof that Christ rose from the dead, besides personal witnesses, and that death should be a fairly large concern to you, as it should be to all who are born on this earth since we all must face death, then you should at least be willing to investigate the evidence with a somewhat open, but guarded, mind so as to ascertain if this is actually true. Especially since the promise at the basis of accepting Christ into your life is so huge, i.e. Eternal life promised to you by the Creator of heaven and earth,, for whom it is impossible to be untrue to His promise through Christ!!! notes: A fact that I always found to argue very strongly for Christianity. The fact is that, as I've heard said by many preachers before, you can go to the graves of all the other founders of all the other major religions of the world and find the remains of a body, yet, as the Shroud of Turin stubbornly testifies despite many attempts to refute the Shroud’s authenticity, if you go to the tomb of Jesus you will not find the remains of a body because Jesus has risen from the dead. Matthew 28:5-6 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Burial places of founders of world religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_places_of_founders_of_world_religions The Shroud of Turin is one of the most scientifically scrutinized artifacts in recorded history. Through a rigid process of elimination, through all materialistic possibilities, it becomes crystal clear; the way in which the photographic negative, and uniquely three dimensional, image of the man on the Shroud of Turin had to be imprinted was 'supernatural' in its process. The Turin Shroud - Comparing Image And Photographic Negative - interactive webpage (Of note: The finding that the image on the Shroud is indeed a photographic negative is still as much a mystery today as when it was first discovered by Secondo Pia in 1898.) http://www.shroud.com/shrdface.htm Shroud Of Turin's Unique 3 Dimensionality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041182 All attempts to reproduce the Shroud fail: Experts Question Scientist’s Claim of Reproducing Shroud of Turin - Oct 6, 2009 http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=98037# Many solid lines of evidence pointed to the Shroud’s authenticity back in the 1980’s, yet the carbon dating of 1989 indicated a medieval age. In spite of many other, more reliable, lines of evidence establishing the Shroud as authentic, many people unquestionably accepted the carbon dating as valid and presumed the Shroud to be a medieval fake. THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE - Evidence of Authenticity http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html Shroud Of Turin - Sewn From Two Pieces - 2000 Years Old - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109101 The Sudarium of Oviedo http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm In a fairly recent breakthrough, the carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford in 2000. Their research, with textile experts, showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud which was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s had much historical, and photographic, evidence behind it. Their historical, and photographic, evidence was then scientifically confirmed by chemical analysis in 2005 by Raymond Rogers. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1989 carbon testing has been accepted across the board scientifically. New Evidence Overturns Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4222339 The following is the main peer reviewed paper which has refuted the 1989 Carbon Dating: Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years. http://www.ntskeptics.org/issues/shroud/shroudold.htm Rogers passed away shortly after publishing this paper, but his work was ultimately verified by the Los Alamos National Laboratory: Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today. This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report and video which completely confirms the Rogers' paper: “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008) Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case....... LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. Robert Villarreal Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review - Robert Villarreal - Press Release video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041193bornagain77
November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
molch, I really don't know your personal beliefs about theism atheism pantheism and all, but it seems to me that since Christianity actually offers tangible physical proof that Christ rose from the dead, besides personal witnesses, and that death should be a fairly large concern to you, as it should be to all who are born on this earth since we all must face death, then you should at least be willing to investigate the evidence with a somewhat open, but guarded, mind so as to ascertain if this is actually true. Especially since the promise at the basis of accepting Christ into your life is so huge, i.e. Eternal life promised to you by the Creator of heaven and earth,, for whom it is impossible to be untrue to His promise through Christ!!! notes: A fact that I always found to argue very strongly for Christianity. The fact is that, as I've heard said by many preachers before, you can go to the graves of all the other founders of all the other major religions of the world and find the remains of a body, yet, as the Shroud of Turin stubbornly testifies despite many attempts to refute the Shroud’s authenticity, if you go to the tomb of Jesus you will not find the remains of a body because Jesus has risen from the dead. Matthew 28:5-6 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Burial places of founders of world religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_places_of_founders_of_world_religions The Shroud of Turin is one of the most scientifically scrutinized artifacts in recorded history. Through a rigid process of elimination, through all materialistic possibilities, it becomes crystal clear; the way in which the photographic negative, and uniquely three dimensional, image of the man on the Shroud of Turin had to be imprinted was 'supernatural' in its process. The Turin Shroud - Comparing Image And Photographic Negative - interactive webpage (Of note: The finding that the image on the Shroud is indeed a photographic negative is still as much a mystery today as when it was first discovered by Secondo Pia in 1898.) http://www.shroud.com/shrdface.htm Shroud Of Turin's Unique 3 Dimensionality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041182 All attempts to reproduce the Shroud fail: Experts Question Scientist’s Claim of Reproducing Shroud of Turin - Oct 6, 2009 http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=98037# Many solid lines of evidence pointed to the Shroud’s authenticity back in the 1980’s, yet the carbon dating of 1989 indicated a medieval age. In spite of many other, more reliable, lines of evidence establishing the Shroud as authentic, many people unquestionably accepted the carbon dating as valid and presumed the Shroud to be a medieval fake. THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE - Evidence of Authenticity http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html Shroud Of Turin - Sewn From Two Pieces - 2000 Years Old - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109101 The Sudarium of Oviedo http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm In a fairly recent breakthrough, the carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford in 2000. Their research, with textile experts, showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud which was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s had much historical, and photographic, evidence behind it. Their historical, and photographic, evidence was then scientifically confirmed by chemical analysis in 2005 by Raymond Rogers. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1989 carbon testing has been accepted across the board scientifically. New Evidence Overturns Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4222339 The following is the main peer reviewed paper which has refuted the 1989 Carbon Dating: Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years. http://www.ntskeptics.org/issues/shroud/shroudold.htm Rogers passed away shortly after publishing this paper, but his work was ultimately verified by the Los Alamos National Laboratory: Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today. http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/the-custodians-of-time/ This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report and video which completely confirms the Rogers' paper: “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008) Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case....... LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. Robert Villarreal http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/ Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review - Robert Villarreal - Press Release video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041193bornagain77
November 3, 2010
November
11
Nov
3
03
2010
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 9

Leave a Reply