Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - lapwing

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 403
1531
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Resurrection Argument: cherry picking?
« on: August 10, 2015, 12:40:20 PM »
Fred,

You're the one who is playing games! You accuse me of not responding to something:

Quote
I'm still waiting for Lapwing to admit that his statements are also opinion

yet you never actually specified to me in this thread any statements I made that you think are opinion but that I stated as facts. If that's not playing games I don't know what is!

Quote
It depends on whether or not he tries to set aside his prior assumptions about Jesus in his analysis, and how successful he is at it.  Do YOU think he's a critical scholar, per my definition?

Trouble is this depends on personal judgment and I think it quite possible we could come to different opinions on the same person and work. So I can't answer that question. However, I could comment on statements made in his books etc.

1532
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Resurrection Argument: cherry picking?
« on: August 10, 2015, 10:58:19 AM »
Quote from: Fred
I'm still waiting for Lapwing to admit that his statements are also opinion.
Which statements Fred?
Not all of them e.g. England have just regained the Ashes - I call that fact not opinion.

1533
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
39He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.
from Mt 12 NIV

1534
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Resurrection Argument: cherry picking?
« on: August 10, 2015, 05:34:24 AM »
Quote from: Fred
A scholar is a person who has a relevant PhD, is associated with a respected institute of higher learning, who devotes his career to research, and publishes in peer-reviewed journals.  A critical scholar is one who analyzes the Bible and any related historical sources, without religious presupposition, treating the material as he would any historical sources.

So when you say "without religious presupposition" that includes believing that God does not exist?

Does F F Bruce count as a critical scholar then?
See:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Vj9QuSrC9cQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=f+f+bruce+a+life&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAGoVChMIoLKBh6eexwIVwocsCh1U0AV6#v=onepage&q=f%20f%20bruce%20a%20life&f=false

Are you saying that Craig and Habermas don't believe that any of the NT could have been written by eyewitnesses?

1535
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Praise be to God.
« on: August 09, 2015, 03:59:10 PM »
I'm old enough to remember that in "the old days" touring sides played much more proper cricket (i.e. 3/4 day games) before and during the Tests. England would go into the sticks to play a state "country eleven" (as well as all the state sides) where the fast bowlers would be sheep shearers and the batsmen would be shopkeepers etc., and there'd be a few beers sunk in the evenings. So without all the one day games the teams would have more time to adjust to different playing conditions. Australia would play more counties and even university teams and President's X1 etc. here.

1536
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Resurrection Argument: cherry picking?
« on: August 09, 2015, 02:47:25 PM »
Quote from: Asherah
wishing to discredit the authority of the Jerusalem church
I recall that there is much in the NT about collecting money and giving it to the Jerusalem church. So the idea that the disciple's incredulity about the Resurrection in the gospels was made up in order to discredit the Jerusalem church (even though it's likely that some of Jesus' earliest followers would have left Jerusalem by this time) is most unlikely and seems like clutching at straws.

It's an idea more appropriate to a much later era when Rome was seeking to be the leader of the various apostolic churches (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Byzantium).

1537
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Resurrection Argument: cherry picking?
« on: August 09, 2015, 02:29:38 PM »
Quote
critical scholars
It seems that "critical" here is defined as those people who share your opinion Fred, possibly in an oblique manner. Do you have an objective definition of critical here that doesn't prejudge the question.

Quote
there is better support for it than the empty tomb opinion.
Another example of opinion dressed up as fact.

1538
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Resurrection Argument: cherry picking?
« on: August 09, 2015, 02:24:14 PM »
Quote from: Asherah
Jesus’ disciples were not only true believers in the imminent establishment of the Kingdom of God, but that their master would be at the forefront as “Son of Man” and messiah, and they would be in exalted positions as his deputies.  They abandoned their former lives to follow Jesus – a wholehearted commitment.  It’s unreasonable to insist they would not suffer from such cognitive dissonance and rationalize what had occurred.

Then you have to further argue that the accounts that the followers of Jesus initially disbelieved reports of Jesus' resurrection were also made up (that's an awful lot of making up cf. that's an awful lot of "running" in To Kill a Mockingbird viz. Bob Ewell's false testimony) - and this was done to refute the idea of "cognitive dissonance" centuries later. That's an untenable and nonsensical view to hold.

1539
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Resurrection Argument: cherry picking?
« on: August 09, 2015, 01:59:06 PM »
Quote from: Fred
The Gospels were not written by the disciples, and there’s no evidence the authors were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection.
This is opinion dressed up as fact.

1540
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Praise be to God.
« on: August 09, 2015, 01:19:47 PM »
Quote
England beat Australia at cricket to win the Ashes back.

Hmmm not sure how to respond to that.

Rest assured that the pendulum will swing the other way - and try to avoid the rash of Australian jokes such as

Q "What do you call a world class Australian batsman?"
A "Retired"

and

"Did you hear the story of the spectator who went to get a drink at the bar ... and missed the entire Australian 1st innings?"

1541
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Praise be to God.
« on: August 08, 2015, 01:41:51 PM »
In England it has been a sunny and warm day and England beat Australia at cricket to win the Ashes back. This makes today a rare day indeed. Later I went out to a lavender farm to take some photos, count butterflies for the charity Butterfly Conservation and enjoy tea and lavender shortcake - oh and my football team won 2-0 in their first match of the season.

None of that compares to knowing Christ to be my Saviour but it has been a good day.

1542
Although having used the word "wrong" in the thread title to attract attention (Aquinas "wrong" - you cannot be serious) this isn't something that is either right or wrong. Yes I think Ephesus is the favourite for initial target recipients but there are other ideas e.g. Alexandria.

Also, Aquinas frequently quotes scripture to justify the conclusions he seeks to prove in his question and answer approach in Summa Theologicae.

1543
Quote
P(evidence | resurrection) / P(evidence | no resurrection) }

In other words if the resurrection is more likely than not given the evidence, then the P(resurrection | evidence) is more likely than the prior (i.e. prior to considering the evidence) P(resurrection) by the above ratio:
Yes, and vice versa. Expressing this mathematically doesn't add anything to the analysis.

Quote
which I assume is the reasoning behind the discussion of inference to best explanation. Note that this result comes from assuming the prior P(resurrection) is close to zero.
I don't think it does, because of two problems:

1. The problem of "best of a bad lot"- there's no guarantee the actual explanation is among the set being analyzed.
 2. If X is the "best" explanation, the methodology doesn't compare its liklihood to "not X", which it would need to do to establish that X is more likely than not to be true.

On the vice versa, Fred, isn't it odd to suppose that the Resurrection is less likely given the evidence i.e. if there were no NT and no extra-biblical evidence for the Resurrection the Resurrection would be more likely. I don't think that's likely.

1544
Quote from: A_Theistic_Seeker
There's absolutely no magic, here.  Bayes' Theorem isn't some kind of "modern intellectual tool" for analyzing evidence...it's just a pretty packaging of timeless common sense.

Agreed, the formula follows from basic probability theory.

1545

Bayesian analysis has got very little (basically nothing) to do with IBE´s.

Quote
Properly used, abductive reasoning can be a useful source of priors in Bayesian statistics
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference_to_the_Best_Explanation

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 403
anything