Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[Sparko]

Well, what changed your mind, what was the evidence that was so convincing to you?

I'm sure you are taking his words out of context, which isn't nice Sparko, Tass believes in science so to say that he wouldn't believe in the existence of a god that was scietifically verified, I think is probably a lie.

haven't you been reading this thread?

Start here and go forward to at least #220

It started with me giving Tassman a hypothetical with verifiable evidence of God (God talking to him and then bringing back someone of his choosing from the dead - even someone many years dead. which could be verified by anyone scientifically)

He said he would not believe even then and assume it was something natural.

[Sparko]

I wouldn't worry about it, he's demonstrably gullible.



You’re correct Jim; Sparko is as usual being dishonest and misleading.

The context was in believing “verified” evidence for a fairy-tale figure granting wishes. Sparko believes that a seemingly answered wish would prove the imaginary figure to be real. Whereas I would question the validity of the verification process on the basis that imaginary figures cannot act in the real world. I would also question the “verification” process re supposed miracles from God on the same basis.

You would not only question but deny ANY verifiable evidence for God. Continual conversation in this thread has shown that. Along with your refusal to even give a hypothetical answer to what evidence you WOULD accept (which started this whole conversation)

So IF, as you say, you would indeed accept scientific evidence that God is real, what would it look like? Give us an example. What sort of evidence would you accept?

[Sparko]

Not so. YOU wanted ME to give YOU arguments of what would convince me of the existence of God. Again, that’s not my role. The burden of proof rests with you to show why we should believe in God.

no that was ME. and I didn't demand, I asked, hypothetically what evidence you would accept. Why? because you made the claim that you would accept scientifically verifiable evidence of God. Yet when asked what form that would hypothetically take, you refused to answer. And when I proposed such any hypothetical situations with scientifically verifiable evidence you said you would not believe after all.

You are merely playing a game here Tassy. You want to pretend to be open-minded, yet you show you are not at every opportunity. Even your buddy JimL has admitted that he would believe under the same hypothetical I gave you. Yet you won't, and won't even give an example of what evidence you would accept. Since it is you who would be accepting this hypothetical proof of God, only you can tell us what it is. We are not mind readers.

So if you indeed would accept scientific evidence for God, what would it be? Only you know that answer.

[JimL]

no that was ME. and I didn't demand, I asked, hypothetically what evidence you would accept. Why? because you made the claim that you would accept scientifically verifiable evidence of God. Yet when asked what form that would hypothetically take, you refused to answer. And when I proposed such any hypothetical situations with scientifically verifiable evidence you said you would not believe after all.

You are merely playing a game here Tassy. You want to pretend to be open-minded, yet you show you are not at every opportunity. Even your buddy JimL has admitted that he would believe under the same hypothetical I gave you. Yet you won't, and won't even give an example of what evidence you would accept. Since it is you who would be accepting this hypothetical proof of God, only you can tell us what it is. We are not mind readers.

So if you indeed would accept scientific evidence for God, what would it be? Only you know that answer.

You've been going on and on about how Tass has said that he wouldn't even accept verifiable scientific evidence for gods existence, and then you turn around and argue that Tass "made the claim that he would accept scientifically verifiable evidence." And btw, what difference does it make what the scientifically verifiable evidence is, so long as it is scientifically verifiable? What do you want to do, debate over what is and what is not verifiable as well.

[Sparko]

You've been going on and on about how Tass has said that he wouldn't even accept verifiable scientific evidence for gods existence, and then you turn around and argue that Tass "made the claim that he would accept scientifically verifiable evidence." And btw, what difference does it make what the scientifically verifiable evidence is, so long as it is scientifically verifiable? What do you want to do, debate over what is and what is not verifiable as well.

He said he would but when asked what kind of scientific verifiable evidence he would accept, he refused to answer, and even when given examples (that you by the way said you would accept) he refused to accept. Saying he will accept scientifically verifiable evidence and whether he actually would are two different things. He wants to pretend to be open minded and wants to discuss whether God exists or not, while at the same time will deny any evidence whatsoever for God.

The reason it came up is that in these threads, Tassman keeps demanding we prove God exists, while knowing full well he wouldn't accept any proof. He is just wasting our time. Why should we bother arguing for God with him if, no matter what, he will just hand wave it away anyway? Might as well argue with a brick wall.

If he would not even accept something like a person of his own choosing being brought back to life by a being claiming to be God and being scientifically verified by anyone in the world, then he will not accept anything as proof.

[Teallaura]

Yes, the so called evidence you just provided is useless Tea, but thanks anyway.

You can reject evidence - as you just did - but your basis is irrational. Eye witness testimony is perfectly valid evidence. The fact that you won't even consider it brings your ability to assess evidence into question.

[Teallaura]

Man shouldn't have to be saved from his own creator, any more than a child should have to be saved from its parent.

Man needs salvation from the consequences of his actions.


My backside would have appreciated that kind of salvation from Mom a few times...

[Tassman]

You would not only question but deny ANY verifiable evidence for God.

Science investigates the natural world. If there was scientifically verifiable evidence of a "seemingly" miraculous occurrence it would be a natural explanation, not a supernatural one. I've been saying this all along. History is replete with alleged miracles of dubious veracity.

Continual conversation in this thread has shown that. Along with your refusal to even give a hypothetical answer to what evidence you WOULD accept (which started this whole conversation)

This from the person who would accept that an invented fairy-tale figure was real if she granted your wishes.

Once again: If the Blue Fairy granted your wish the obvious thing would be to search for the natural explanation of this seemingly supernatural occurrence NOT declare that the Blue Fairy is real, which is what you did.

So IF, as you say, you would indeed accept scientific evidence that God is real, what would it look like? Give us an example. What sort of evidence would you accept?

It is you, not me, asserting God is real, it is not up to me to provided hypothetical evidence. The burden of proof is yours.

[oxmixmudd]

There’s no substantive evidence of a non-physical life.

I never said there was - excepting the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the witness of the Old and New Testaments, which you do not believe in.

Most scholars don’t consider the gospels to be eyewitness reportage. Even Baukham, who tries to make a case that Papias met with eyewitnesses, acknowledges that the best Papias can do is establish 2nd and 3rd hand reports from what others reported about those eyewitnesses.

Most 'scholars' in this camp don't believe in the Resurrection either. The issue here as I see it is that the assumptions that go into these conclusions are no more verifiable than the alternates. For example, St. John (the Disciple) who is traditionally believed to have written the Gospel of John, the earliest fragments of which date to 125 CE. The disciple Himself lived until 100C.E. So you and those in your camp would claim 'see, 25 years after his life ended, unlikely he wrote it'. But the fact is we know the majority of the books of the Canon were being used by Christians as early as 70 CE, with evidence the full canon was being used as early as 100CE. So to limit oneself the the earliest dated fragment when deciding if these could be 'eyewitness' reports is absurd. The books were known to exist long before the disciple died. There is no reason, other than personal bias against the idea, to then conclude that the Gospel of John could not be an eyewitness account. It most certainly could be. Consider this also. Christ likely taught and died in and around 30CE. The youngest of those that heard him teach and that could reliably attest to his teachings would be 12 to 20 years old at that time (keeping in mind that a Jewish boy was considered to have come of age around 13). There is no reason to assume then that eyewitnesses of the events would not have been alive in 70CE - a 12 year old would be 52 at that point, or eve 100CE, where such would be 82, given that St. John was OLDER that this when he died.

Ehrman makes his case against eyewitness accounts here:

https://ehrmanblog.org/question-abou...d-the-gospels/

Ehrman is a sad product of the same sorts of fundamentalism that pushes YEC pseudo-science. By his own report he was raised to think there where no 'errors' of any kind in the Bible, which is just stupid. There are thousands of manuscripts, some with copy errors, some with very different wordings of the text. If one is to believe in the Bible as an inspired work, it can't be based on the provably false assumption the text we have is 100% exactly the same as what was originally written or the idea there are no potential portions of the text we don't know exactly what the original was. But Ehrman was understandably shaken by this and eventually lost his faith. Again by his own testimony. Unfortunately, he seems quite intent at this point on trying to make sure the issues with the text are interpreted in the worst possible light so that everyone else can join him in his loss of belief. But when I read his popular book, what impressed me is the fact that because we have so many manuscripts and because we can statistically analyze them and weed out likely unorthodox variants, we can effectively recover with more accuracy than any other ancient text what the most likely text of the original was. And I actually find that quite exciting and it encourages my faith. He worries about so many ancillary things about the parts we can't quite nail down. But the majority of the text and its testament to Christ and his teachings we know almost with 100% accuracy to be what we read in any modern edition of the Bible. And it is those core teachings that define our faith, not the stuff he worries about.

Not so. YOU wanted ME to give YOU arguments of what would convince me of the existence of God. Again, that’s not my role. The burden of proof rests with you to show why we should believe in God.

Again - I never did that. And even what Sparko said is only bizarrely interpreted in this light. He was not demanding you give him evidence, he as ASKING you what kind of evidence you would find convincing. I find your whole rant over this unconvincing. Anyone in their right mind would never have responded to his request the way you have. As far as I can tell you are just playing some sort of game with words to get around answering his question.

For many years I attended an annual performance of Handel’s Messiah at the Sydney Opera House (with score). I am very familiar with it. It is beautiful and moving.

Indeed it is. I have performed it so many times over the years I've lost count, both in the Chorus and as a Soloist. And I never tire of it and will happily be on the stage again performing it this Christmas in two separate venues, one as a chorister, and one as a soloist.

Nevertheless, the so-called “messianic prophecies” that are said to point to Jesus were never taken to be messianic prophecies by Jews prior to the Christians, who saw Jesus as the messiah. The Old Testament in fact never says that the messiah will be born of a virgin, that he will be executed by his enemies, and that he will be raised from the dead. It is important when applying prophesies to not selectively pick and choose catch phrases from them and disregard the rest.

What was a 'young girl', an unmarried righteous women in the time of the textual writing but a virgin? You swat at gnats but swallow camels.

One of the texts I referred to of being accused of being 'added after the fact' because they were so to the point, so obviously about the Messiah is Isaiah 53:

Source: Isaiah 53 1-11

53 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities

© Copyright Original Source

"Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.” “The Gospels are historical sources that lack historicity. This statement represents the mainstream academic understanding of these ancient literary works”.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbo...ospels-part-1/

Again it is the height of absurdity to believe that no eyewitness could possibly have been alive 40 to 60 years after the death of Jesus - especially when St John was alive until 70 years after Christ's death and resurrection. You might be motivated to conveniently overlook that simple fact, but I certainly am not.
It is also the height of absurdity to believe that these stories had their origin at the date of writing and not many years prior to being written down. But just as with YEC, the absurd can become what is 'logical' if one has sufficient bias and motivation.

Given that Pliny died in 113AD and Tacitus in 120AD and Suetonius in 140AD etc, there is ample time for a fledgling religion to have grown to the point of being noticed and commented upon by these figures.

Which misses the point. To believe that there are no historical events and eyewitnesses of those events whose lives and recounting of Jesus' teachings are what created the Christian Faith is antithetical to all we know about the time and the history and writings of the Church. It is a position born out of nothing less than a desire to discredit Christian faith, not an unbiased attempt understand it or objectively assess it's likely origin.


Jim

[JimL]

I never said there was - excepting the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the witness of the Old and New Testaments, which you do not believe in.




Most 'scholars' in this camp don't believe in the Resurrection either. The issue here as I see it is that the assumptions that go into these conclusions are no more verifiable than the alternates. For example, St. John (the Disciple) who is traditionally believed to have written the Gospel of John, the earliest fragments of which date to 125 CE. The disciple Himself lived until 100C.E. So you and those in your camp would claim 'see, 25 years after his life ended, unlikely he wrote it'. But the fact is we know the majority of the books of the Canon were being used by Christians as early as 70 CE, with evidence the full canon was being used as early as 100CE. So to limit oneself the the earliest dated fragment when deciding if these could be 'eyewitness' reports is absurd. The books were known to exist long before the disciple died. There is no reason, other than personal bias against the idea, to then conclude that the Gospel of John could not be an eyewitness account. It most certainly could be. Consider this also. Christ likely taught and died in and around 30CE. The youngest of those that heard him teach and that could reliably attest to his teachings would be 12 to 20 years old at that time (keeping in mind that a Jewish boy was considered to have come of age around 13). There is no reason to assume then that eyewitnesses of the events would not have been alive in 70CE - a 12 year old would be 52 at that point, or eve 100CE, where such would be 82, given that St. John was OLDER that this when he died.



Ehrman is a sad product of the same sorts of fundamentalism that pushes YEC pseudo-science. By his own report he was raised to think there where no 'errors' of any kind in the Bible, which is just stupid. There are thousands of manuscripts, some with copy errors, some with very different wordings of the text. If one is to believe in the Bible as an inspired work, it can't be based on the provably false assumption the text we have is 100% exactly the same as what was originally written or the idea there are no potential portions of the text we don't know exactly what the original was. But Ehrman was understandably shaken by this and eventually lost his faith. Again by his own testimony. Unfortunately, he seems quite intent at this point on trying to make sure the issues with the text are interpreted in the worst possible light so that everyone else can join him in his loss of belief. But when I read his popular book, what impressed me is the fact that because we have so many manuscripts and because we can statistically analyze them and weed out likely unorthodox variants, we can effectively recover with more accuracy than any other ancient text what the most likely text of the original was. And I actually find that quite exciting and it encourages my faith. He worries about so many ancillary things about the parts we can't quite nail down. But the majority of the text and its testament to Christ and his teachings we know almost with 100% accuracy to be what we read in any modern edition of the Bible. And it is those core teachings that define our faith, not the stuff he worries about.



Again - I never did that. And even what Sparko said is only bizarrely interpreted in this light. He was not demanding you give him evidence, he as ASKING you what kind of evidence you would find convincing. I find your whole rant over this unconvincing. Anyone in their right mind would never have responded to his request the way you have. As far as I can tell you are just playing some sort of game with words to get around answering his question.





Indeed it is. I have performed it so many times over the years I've lost count, both in the Chorus and as a Soloist. And I never tire of it and will happily be on the stage again performing it this Christmas in two separate venues, one as a chorister, and one as a soloist.




What was a 'young girl', an unmarried righteous women in the time of the textual writing but a virgin? You swat at gnats but swallow camels.

One of the texts I referred to of being accused of being 'added after the fact' because they were so to the point, so obviously about the Messiah is Isaiah 53:

Source: Isaiah 53 1-11

53 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities

© Copyright Original Source

Again it is the height of absurdity to believe that no eyewitness could possibly have been alive 40 to 60 years after the death of Jesus - especially when St John was alive until 70 years after Christ's death and resurrection. You might be motivated to conveniently overlook that simple fact, but I certainly am not.
It is also the height of absurdity to believe that these stories had their origin at the date of writing and not many years prior to being written down. But just as with YEC, the absurd can become what is 'logical' if one has sufficient bias and motivation.




Which misses the point. To believe that there are no historical events and eyewitnesses of those events whose lives and recounting of Jesus' teachings are what created the Christian Faith is antithetical to all we know about the time and the history and writings of the Church. It is a position born out of nothing less than a desire to discredit Christian faith, not an unbiased attempt understand it or objectively assess it's likely origin.


Jim

Being that the N.T. was written long after the O.T biblical quotes you mentioned, isn't it logical that the N.T. authors would take that into consideration when relating the story of Jesus whom they wished to be seen as the messiah? I mean, what would you expect them to write, something that contradicts what the O.T. predicted? I believe that there is even one passage in the N.T. that expresses exactly that, something about Jesus riding an ass into town so that the prophesy might be fulfilled.

[tabibito]

Being that the N.T. was written long after the O.T biblical quotes you mentioned, isn't it logical that the N.T. authors would take that into consideration when relating the story of Jesus whom they wished to be seen as the messiah? I mean, what would you expect them to write, something that contradicts what the O.T. predicted? I believe that there is even one passage in the N.T. that expresses exactly that, something about Jesus riding an ass into town so that the prophesy might be fulfilled.

Matthew 21:4 τουτο δε ολον γεγονεν ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια του προφητου λεγοντος ...
Matthew 27:35 βαλλοντες κληρον ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν υπο του προφητου διεμερισαντο ...

The bolded points in both cases translate as "so that the word (lit:did uttering) might be fulfilled". Matthew 27:35 records the soldiers casting lots for Jesus's clothing so that the word could be fulfilled: a phrasing that tends to mislead. There is no reason to interpret it such that the soldiers deliberately set out to fulfil a prophecy, and Matthew 21:4 is even more certain - γεγονεν (from ginomai - which is commonly used to indicate that a circumstance spontaneously arises) lending the nuance of "as it happened".

[JimL]

Matthew 21:4 τουτο δε ολον γεγονεν ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια του προφητου λεγοντος ...
Matthew 27:35 βαλλοντες κληρον ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν υπο του προφητου διεμερισαντο ...

The bolded points in both cases translate as "so that the word (lit:did uttering) might be fulfilled". Matthew 27:35 records the soldiers casting lots for Jesus's clothing so that the word could be fulfilled: a phrasing that tends to mislead. There is no reason to interpret it such that the soldiers deliberately set out to fulfil a prophecy, and Matthew 21:4 is even more certain - γεγονεν (from ginomai - which is commonly used to indicate that a circumstance spontaneously arises) lending the nuance of "as it happened".

Cool, and so the authors wrote the N.T. "so that the word, i.e the O.T. word, might be fulfilled."

[tabibito]

Cool, and so the authors wrote the N.T. "so that the word, i.e the O.T. word, might be fulfilled."

Yes - though the idea that it was done with intent isn't part of the idea conveyed by the Koine Greek.

[JimL]

Yes - though the idea that it was done with intent isn't part of the idea conveyed by the Koine Greek.

Well of course not, if the authors were trying to fool their readers, then they would not tell them that that was their intention. Its a very simple process to look back at the O.T. prophesies and then fit them into your N.T. stories as if they had been fulfilled.

[Sparko]

Science investigates the natural world. If there was scientifically verifiable evidence of a "seemingly" miraculous occurrence it would be a natural explanation, not a supernatural one. I've been saying this all along. History is replete with alleged miracles of dubious veracity.



This from the person who would accept that an invented fairy-tale figure was real if she granted your wishes.

Once again: If the Blue Fairy granted your wish the obvious thing would be to search for the natural explanation of this seemingly supernatural occurrence NOT declare that the Blue Fairy is real, which is what you did.



It is you, not me, asserting God is real, it is not up to me to provided hypothetical evidence. The burden of proof is yours.

See JimL? I was not lying. Tassman will not accept scientific verifiable evidence of God. Anything God did that was natural he just says, "well that's just natural it happens just by chance" and anything that God could do that is supernatural he dismisses as "science only investigates the natural world so anything with scientific evidence is natural" and either just ignores it, or says it is natural and therefore not evidence for God.

His reasoning is so circular that he can't believe in God no matter what. Evidence doesn't matter because he defines all evidence as "natural" and therefore not evidence for God.