Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” now out

[Razncain]

Which you can find on Amazon.

Initial reviews are quite favorable, although it looks like a couple of the reviews and mostly comments are few rabid Christian apologists that have showed up to show their distaste in this book, with some obviously never having read it. I finally finished it myself, and think Carrier really did a great job with it.

I hope others will find the book to their liking, and if so, give it the favorable ratings you think it deserves.

 

[tupac chopra]

I've had one interaction with him online about one or two points and found him very likable and open enough to change his mind rather than digging his heels in. Which is rare online haha But , I can't help laughing when I read this, from a review

Finally in conclusion he brings all his probabilities together and concludes that Jesus had at best a 32% chance of existing

 

[Kharakov]

He was involved with Infidels.org back in the day. Interesting, for the first time in history since I first interacted with the community here, the discussion forums are not listed in the electronic resources section over at infidels.org

Can't recall if this is purposeful or not?

 

[Razncain]

I still read quite a bit from the Secular Web. Not sure why they divided it up.

I think Carrier said he put in ten years of research on this book, and it shows. I really enjoyed reading it. To be able to weigh all of the evidence he brings up, one has to retain a lot, or plan on spending more time rereading parts of the NT again to see if it makes more sense with what Carrier shares, but it's still not hard to get the points he is making. I’m looking forward to what mainstream scholars have to say about it.

Plenty of debate going on in the comment sections at Amazon with this book, mostly with this Christian apologist named David Marshall who has one of the shittiest dispositions I have ever seen. Picture J.P. Holding's twin. He pretty much lives on Amazon, he has given out 150 reviews of books, often promoting his blog in the process or the few books he has out on apologetics, and must have wrote thousands in the comments sections.

He asked Richard Carrier if he would debate him on if the Christian faith being reasonable. I was surprised that Carrier would waste time on somebody like him. But I’m so glad he did. How he used his germ theory argument in the opening was as brilliant as it gets. After Marshall finishes his opening script which wasn’t all that good of an opening, he slowly starts falling apart, especially in the Q&A section that followed. I counted about three times he had that deer in the headlight look just in the Q&A alone, one time his jaw was literally wide open when it came to a question about C.S. Lewis, and repeatedly had to keep asking what the question was and with Carrier helping him with that too. At least Marshall pretended to be friendly there, unlike what you see on most of his blog or on Amazon. The comment section on youtube was also hilarious. David Marshall spent time in the comment section there too, trying to do damage control, but as one commented, Carrier wiped the floor with him which was pretty much the sentiment of all.

Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?

 

[Kharakov]

I don't know about that, the first thing that DM postulates is pretty much a given. The Christian faith is pragmatic. For those who use it for a sense of peace, and understand it, it works. For those who enjoy arguing against religion, it works. In fact, for either group, it is a pragmatic thing.

The arguers have plenty of little nitpicky things to argue about, which really don't impinge upon the faith itself. The faithful enjoy the sense of well being the faith provides. In fact, you can be faithful, and an arguer, and ignore certain precepts of the faith. Or you can hate the faith, because of some imagined slight, and argue against its various built in inconsistencies (put there by God so you have something to pick away at like a Turkey on Thanksgiving).

So it serves its purpose. A smorgasbord of ideas, that may be picked away at by either side, and as long as you don't bite a server, you'll enjoy your meal. Which reminds me, I think Mageth has a response for this (remember it from the old board, although I don't remember the response).

 

[Razncain]

Certainly believers and nonbelievers have a different set of pragmatic parameters each are working from. What each group considers good evidence is one of the main things that separates believes and non-believers. Believers tend to be more easily swayed by good story telling, power of suggestion, fallacious arguments, personal testimonials, hearsay, peer pressure, etc. This is good evidence to them. Non-believers can be venerable to such things too, but tend to give it a more skeptical look, will often seek out the sciences more, and want and seek out harder evidence before one generally commits to it being more probably true than not.

With Christian faith giving them peace of mind and is pragmatic in that sense, I have no doubt that many get comfort from their faith, what many may consider as nothing more than a placebo effect, but not sure if it is any more than any other religion, so there is no more reason to accept that the Christian faith is the most reasonable for that reason which was what the debate was supposed to be about, let alone it being true. For many Christians that still believe in a fiery hell surely that also causes a nocebo effect.

Religion, if practiced in moderation isn’t such a bad thing, I don’t think. Especially if they don’t take it too seriously, but many kind of had to screw it all up by getting it organized, causing divisions, and many of the negative effects we see of it today which seem to far outweigh any placebo effect some may benefit out of it.

 

[Kharakov]

Believers tend to be more easily swayed by good story telling, power of suggestion, fallacious arguments, personal testimonials, hearsay, peer pressure, etc. This is good evidence to them.

The above statement often applies to a certain subclass of believers who are caught up in the polarized thoughts of their peer group of fellow religiophobes.

Non-believers can be venerable to such things too, but tend to give it a more skeptical look, will often seek out the sciences more, and want and seek out harder evidence before one generally commits to it being more probably true than not.

The more intellectually mature among non-believers do believe in confirming various things, and believe in the scientific method as a process of ascertaining whether or not something is true about nature. I've also run across non-believers who make wild claims without bothering to check on their claims, or analyze their claims for inconsistencies.

Now, I've considered that they may simply be joking, but I was on the vehement, hate filled, anti-religious side of the line for many years, so while it may be a joke to some, it is not to me, because I remember how bad it felt to hate and fear religion. I also remember making many of the same illogical claims, that are not based on reality, that many individuals in the position I used to be in still make today.

Religion, if practiced in moderation isn’t such a bad thing, I don’t think. Especially if they don’t take it too seriously, but many kind of had to screw it all up by getting it organized, causing divisions, and many of the negative effects we see of it today which seem to far outweigh any placebo effect some may benefit out of it.

I said the same in the past, but the cause is not religion, it is man (well, and God...). Stalin and Mao did not attribute their acts to religion and they managed to accomplish plenty.

 

[Razncain]

The above statement often applies to a certain subclass of believers who are caught up in the polarized thoughts of their peer group of fellow religiophobes.

What believer isn’t a part of that subclass especially when they believe in the supernatural? Believe in that, what other false belief system would they be open too? When you look at poll numbers of Creationism in America about 40% indicate a literal belief in it with them also believing in a young earth. About 70% still believe in a literal fiery hell. What do you think inspires them to think like this?

I said the same in the past, but the cause is not religion, it is man (well, and God...). Stalin and Mao did not attribute their acts to religion and they managed to accomplish plenty.

You can say man is responsible for a lot of things, but religion is an important tool to get many people to do both good and bad. It is also easier in getting them to believe in many other falsehoods, especially when promises of heaven or fear of hell are attached to the equation. Atheism is not near as an effective tool and no promise of many virgins in the next life is going to get them all worked up to believe and do all sorts of crazy stuff. Speak out against Islam in certain Islamic states under sharia law and see how many go completely off their rocker.

The more intellectually mature among non-believers do believe in confirming various things, and believe in the scientific method as a process of ascertaining whether or not something is true about nature. I've also run across non-believers who make wild claims without bothering to check on their claims, or analyze their claims for inconsistencies.

Now, I've considered that they may simply be joking, but I was on the vehement, hate filled, anti-religious side of the line for many years, so while it may be a joke to some, it is not to me, because I remember how bad it felt to hate and fear religion. I also remember making many of the same illogical claims, that are not based on reality, that many individuals in the position I used to be in still make today.

You don’t think that with Creationists, and what they say and believe in must be joking? I think many atheists who were once formally believers often do go through a militant stage, especially when they start discovering how much of what they were taught that was supposedly the truth was actually based on falsehoods. But still what many consider militant is actually quite mild, and simply are those that enjoy good arguments. Many religious folk are going to take umbrage, no matter how gentle you are simply by just having a different opinion. I know Einstein didn’t particularly care for the crusading atheist, but in today’s climate with all that is going on, I’ve often wondered if he wouldn’t have become more outspoken on such matters himself.

DM in the debate used miracles still occurring today as to why his belief in Christianity was rationale. No mention if the kind of biblical miracles are still occurring today, and he certainly lowered the scale of what he considered such to make it look like Christianity was being reasonable.

And since DM didn’t address Carrier’s germ theory, if Jesus was who he was, why couldn’t have Jesus mentioned and explained that to save far more people, than the few isolated cases of supernatural miracles he displayed to save a few? Germs were responsible for half of all deaths in children during those times. Today in America, it is less than 1 in 1,000. This would have been a good time for Jesus to have brought this up if he was who he said he was. Or do we, just accept these stories as having some figurative or allegorical meaning instead of literally happening, although this isn’t the case with DM, and therefore makes it less reasonable.

I’ve learned no matter how gentle the speaker is, even if it was the late Carl Sagan or now Neil deGrasse Tyson hosting Cosmos, if you want to see hate filled vehement diatribes, look at the responses coming from conservatives about that show. To say nothing of bringing up the theory of evolution and see how they react to it. At what point do you think the placebo effect is no longer working or its positive effects of giving them some kind of euphoric state don’t outweigh all of the negations that a false belief system brings into the equation?

 

[credoconsolans]

I still read quite a bit from the Secular Web. Not sure why they divided it up.

I think Carrier said he put in ten years of research on this book, and it shows. I really enjoyed reading it. To be able to weigh all of the evidence he brings up, one has to retain a lot, or plan on spending more time rereading parts of the NT again to see if it makes more sense with what Carrier shares, but it's still not hard to get the points he is making. I’m looking forward to what mainstream scholars have to say about it.

Plenty of debate going on in the comment sections at Amazon with this book, mostly with this Christian apologist named David Marshall who has one of the shittiest dispositions I have ever seen. Picture J.P. Holding's twin. He pretty much lives on Amazon, he has given out 150 reviews of books, often promoting his blog in the process or the few books he has out on apologetics, and must have wrote thousands in the comments sections.

He asked Richard Carrier if he would debate him on if the Christian faith being reasonable. I was surprised that Carrier would waste time on somebody like him. But I’m so glad he did. How he used his germ theory argument in the opening was as brilliant as it gets. After Marshall finishes his opening script which wasn’t all that good of an opening, he slowly starts falling apart, especially in the Q&A section that followed. I counted about three times he had that deer in the headlight look just in the Q&A alone, one time his jaw was literally wide open when it came to a question about C.S. Lewis, and repeatedly had to keep asking what the question was and with Carrier helping him with that too. At least Marshall pretended to be friendly there, unlike what you see on most of his blog or on Amazon. The comment section on youtube was also hilarious. David Marshall spent time in the comment section there too, trying to do damage control, but as one commented, Carrier wiped the floor with him which was pretty much the sentiment of all.

Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?

After you posted your original OP, I went to Amazon to put the book on my wishlist and saw DM's review. He's very disingenuous and an out and out liar.

You can easily see Carrier wash the floor with him, but as Carrier himself commented, DM refused to accept he'd lost and instead goes around telling people he won. Carrier shouldn't bother to give this loser the time of day, but he has to confront him, lest people actually believe in Marshall's lies.

 

[Kharakov]

When you look at poll numbers of Creationism in America about 40% indicate a literal belief in it with them also believing in a young earth. About 70% still believe in a literal fiery hell. What do you think inspires them to think like this?

God? Although you should say "who" not "what" when referring to a being.

You know, I read all this crazy stuff about creationists in America on these forums. And...well, I don't think I've ever actually meet a person who says evolution isn't real anywhere else but in these forums (someone playing the heel, to make learning about evolution fun- God made evolution, so it's fucking cool). Wait- that's not true, this one hot girl I knew was super into Jesus for a couple of months, but I could never really tell if she was pulling my leg or not- she was fun to talk to because she was hot, and she got pretty drunk and she's a close talker, so she basically, ahh hell, she's lovable. Anyway..

You can say man is responsible for a lot of things, but religion is an important tool to get many people to do both good and bad. It is also easier in getting them to believe in many other falsehoods, especially when promises of heaven or fear of hell are attached to the equation.

Peer groups are an important tool to get people to do good and bad. When people are formed into groups of like minded people, guess what? Group behaviors are magnified. If a whole bunch of the people like raping donkeys, it's going to be part of the code of the group. Doesn't matter if it is an atheist peer group that hates religions, or a religious peer group that hates gays, it's the peer group mentality. Although I really don't recall feeling that much hatred in my life, except when I feared something evil was going to control me. Which might be fun. But at the time... anyway.

Atheism is not near as an effective tool and no promise of many virgins in the next life is going to get them all worked up to believe and do all sorts of crazy stuff.

Yeah, atheists just get all worked up about things that obviously are destroying the fabric of society.. Ohh, wait, religions have held people together. So... uummm....

You don’t think that with Creationists, and what they say and believe in must be joking?

What, a YEC? I'm not advocating the Omphalos hypothesis, but there is absolutely no evidence that the universe wasn't created at some point in the more recent past, booted up from a back up, or whatever.

Now, 13.8 billion years sounds a little cooler, and I like the stellar evolution stories, etc. I don't know that the whole universe didn't get created with an intact history 60 years ago. I just don't- and there is no way I can tell, although I tend to believe the 13.8 billion year date... because I fucking like it.

DM in the debate used miracles still occurring today as to why his belief in Christianity was rationale. No mention if the kind of biblical miracles are still occurring today, and he certainly lowered the scale of what he considered such to make it look like Christianity was being reasonable.

Yeah, I didn't feel like watching the whole thing. I'd rather read the transcript? Take 1/10th the time. People talk too damn slow.

And since DM didn’t address Carrier’s germ theory, if Jesus was who he was, why couldn’t have Jesus mentioned and explained that to save far more people, than the few isolated cases of supernatural miracles he displayed to save a few? Germs were responsible for half of all deaths in children during those times. Today in America, it is less than 1 in 1,000.

Watch Monk. That's why (well maybe, I have no clue, and don't speak for God, Jesus, or Plato in this matter).

To say nothing of bringing up the theory of evolution and see how they react to it.

Once again, don't know if I've ever actually meet someone (in person) who didn't think evolution had at least a bit of truthiness.

At what point do you think the placebo effect is no longer working or its positive effects of giving them some kind of euphoric state don’t outweigh all of the negations that a false belief system brings into the equation?

Hmm, well, my belief system, and I acknowledge that I don't know with 100% certitude that it is God, revolves around me being a created being of some sorts. My life is a bit too planned out for me to deny that- and it's not like anyone is getting anything except for love out of me. Although I'll help people out with stuff, and whatever. So... and I feel pretty euphoric at times.

 

[Razncain]

After you posted your original OP, I went to Amazon to put the book on my wishlist and saw DM's review. He's very disingenuous and an out and out liar.

You can easily see Carrier wash the floor with him, but as Carrier himself commented, DM refused to accept he'd lost and instead goes around telling people he won. Carrier shouldn't bother to give this loser the time of day, but he has to confront him, lest people actually believe in Marshall's lies.

Glad you purchased his book, I’m sure you won’t be the slightest bit disappointed.

Yeah, I expected Carrier would catch a lot of flak from Christian apologists on his book, but it’s the mainstream scholars whose opinions are going to matter. Most credible scholars either Christian or atheist have thought Jesus’ historicity was a serious matter; not apologists who will often think it is a laughing matter to even question it. Carrier exposes much of the shoddy scholarship historians have been using for a historical Jesus, and it’s no longer good enough to think some kind of Jesus must have existed because that’s the general consensus of scholars, and let’s just leave it at that. He explained how the general consensus of scholars has been wrong before on other figures thought to be historical, but now they know enough to doubt those. He gives many examples in his book.

I personally never heard of this David Marshall before until this. He wants to be a part of this new and improved Christian apologist where faith doesn’t seem to be stressed as much, but it’s supposed to be about reason but of which he fails miserably at it, and still also believes in the supernatural. Nevermind in the NT, faith is used hundreds of times and it stressed throughout, with hardly a mention of any praise of intelligence or reason, or if it does give praise of it, it’s often of the wrong kind.

Carrier is long-winded at times, but it’s worth wading through it all to see what he is getting at.

 

[Razncain]

God? Although you should say "who" not "what" when referring to a being.

Except I wasn’t referring to any god, you were. You can use the god of the gaps if you prefer.

You know, I read all this crazy stuff about creationists in America on these forums. And...well, I don't think I've ever actually meet a person who says evolution isn't real anywhere else but in these forums (someone playing the heel, to make learning about evolution fun- God made evolution, so it's fucking cool). Wait- that's not true, this one hot girl I knew was super into Jesus for a couple of months, but I could never really tell if she was pulling my leg or not- she was fun to talk to because she was hot, and she got pretty drunk and she's a close talker, so she basically, ahh hell, she's lovable. Anyway..

Well, polling isn’t an exact science, and I can’t help but feel like many are just parroting what they think they are supposed to say. But it’s still difficult to think that there isn’t a good portion of them that sincerely believe in creationism. So do you just ignore all polling on this matter, whether the polling is from Gallop, Pew Research, any of the major networks, which all are fairly consistent in their numbers being in the 40+% range for creationists in America for some time? Maybe you shouldn’t limit yourself to just these forums, if you think most creationists are just playing the heel. Have examples of some doing that here?

Generally during the last two decades, some Creationists have now admitted that the evidence is overwhelming for microevolution, because I guess their peers decided it was alright for them to admit to this and they wouldn’t go to Hell for it, but that isn’t what has them all hot under the collar which you should know by now. They certainly don’t accept evolution occurring on a macro level, however, and certainly not a case for man evolving, and of course ignorantly profess that it’s all pretty much “just a theory” as if it is just a guess. But there really is no separating of micro and macro evolution and coming up with a plausible explanation of why one and not the other. A staff report from the Straight Dope science advisory board covers that aspect, and highly recommended to also click on to his talkorigins link in that very article as well.

Yeah, I didn't feel like watching the whole thing. I'd rather read the transcript? Take 1/10th the time. People talk too damn slow. Take 1/10th the time. People talk too damn slow. Yeah, I didn't feel like watching the whole thing. I'd rather read the transcript? Take 1/10th the time. People talk too damn slow.

It was covered during DM’s opening statement. You seemed to give the impression earlier you were impressed with DM, but I guess you concluded that by only watching a couple of minutes. Carrier actually talks fairly quick, probably faster that you could read from him.

What, a YEC? I'm not advocating the Omphalos hypothesis, but there is absolutely no evidence that the universe wasn't created at some point in the more recent past, booted up from a back up, or whatever.

There is a mountain of empirical evidence coming from many different sciences that would indicate it wasn’t created in the recent past as many YEC’s would have it.

Now, 13.8 billion years sounds a little cooler, and I like the stellar evolution stories, etc. I don't know that the whole universe didn't get created with an intact history 60 years ago. I just don't- and there is no way I can tell, although I tend to believe the 13.8 billion year date... because I fucking like it.

Before, scientists had to go with 10-20 b.y. range due to what constant they were using with Hubble. Now with WMAP and the Planck space probe data, they are now able to zero in on it a bit more. The PBS Nova program, Hunting the Edge of Space is a two part segment explaining why scientists go with a 13.77 by figure (+ or – 1.5%). It is worthwhile to watch. But seriously, you have such a nihilistic skepticism about the age of the universe, that you claim to not know that it might have been created intact 60 years ago and you have no way of telling? But when it comes to your god, let me guess, that skepticism evaporates?

Although I really don't recall feeling that much hatred in my life, except when I feared something evil was going to control me. Which might be fun.

Well, does your attention span allow you to even recall what you posted in #7 (bolding mine)?

Now, I've considered that they may simply be joking, but I was on the vehement, hate filled, anti-religious side of the line for many years, so while it may be a joke to some, it is not to me, because I remember how bad it felt to hate and fear religion.

 

[Kharakov]

You can use the god of the gaps if you prefer.

The god of the gaps, a sister of Lethia ( Lethe.. Λήθη), belongs to certain varieties of naturalists: "we don't know it yet, but we will learn it, and the explanation will be within the natural order of the universe." Not that you'd make such a foolish claim, but you know the type.

Well, polling isn’t an exact science, and I can’t help but feel like many are just parroting what they think they are supposed to say. But it’s still difficult to think that there isn’t a good portion of them that sincerely believe in creationism. So do you just ignore all polling on this matter, whether the polling is from Gallop, Pew Research, any of the major networks, which all are fairly consistent in their numbers being in the 40+% range for creationists in America for some time?

Perhaps 40% of Americans are fucking with atheists because of the way atheists behave? Theistic evolution is basically where it's at. Our minds obviously evolve- so if anything someone can take at least that into account, and extrapolate from there.

Have examples of some doing that here?

Well, I think both sides have people playing the heel, and I will not name any.

You seemed to give the impression earlier you were impressed with DM, but I guess you concluded that by only watching a couple of minutes.

Riggghhhhht... <-- does that simulate the speech rate? I heard DM say the Christian faith is pragmatic, and I agreed. It has its uses. I didn't listen any further than that- it wasn't like watching the Feynman lectures on physics, if you catch my drift. No fucking hook, unless you really want to root for one side over the other. I'm sure either guy is good in some situations, well, maybe, but... anyway.

There is a mountain of empirical evidence coming from many different sciences that would indicate it wasn’t created in the recent past as many YEC’s would have it.

Not if there is a generating function that generates the whole universe with an intact past and future, expanding from one point in time in both directions. In other words, the big bang occurred a few thousand years ago, but the past was created from that point, and the future as well.

I've worked on mathematical functions that generate complex 4 dimensional objects (complex 3d objects that evolve over time), that are complete and whole at t=0, that evolve backwards to a single point and disappear at some -t and some future point +t. So I know that a single function can generate an object that evolves backwards and forwards in time according to certain rules, rules that are caused by the generating function but not the generating function itself.

I'm not saying that this is how the universe evolved (the universe could have evolved over time so that the big bang was t=0), but instead I'm saying that some other point in time could be t=0. I just don't know, and because of the nature of the generating functions I've worked with, I know that this is a possibility (until at some future point in time it is proven that this could not be the case).

If it is the case that it is possible that the universe could be created with a generating function of this type- YECs could be completely correct. Not enough information at this point, all I know is that we live in a dynamic universe, and there are definitely things going on that are not mentioned in any science book that I have read, or been exposed to.

Before, scientists had to go with 10-20 b.y. range due to what constant they were using with Hubble. Now with WMAP and the Planck space probe data, they are now able to zero in on it a bit more. The PBS Nova program, Hunting the Edge of Space is a two part segment explaining why scientists go with a 13.77 by figure (+ or – 1.5%). It is worthwhile to watch. But seriously, you have such a nihilistic skepticism about the age of the universe, that you claim to not know that it might have been created intact 60 years ago and you have no way of telling?

Specifically because of the reason I posted above.

But when it comes to your god, let me guess, that skepticism evaporates?

Not exactly, I've just had enough experiences that I'm way more skeptical of the non-existence of God than I am of the existence of God.

Well, does your attention span allow you to even recall what you posted in #7 (bolding mine)?

Now, I've considered that they may simply be joking, but I was on the vehement, hate filled, anti-religious side of the line for many years, so while it may be a joke to some, it is not to me, because I remember how bad it felt to hate and fear religion.

Yeah. So I understand the fear, hate, prejudice, and intellectual arrogance of the vehement atheist mindset. After all, it's part of my past. So I suppose that those here remind me of me when I was young, ignorant, inexperienced, with great prejudice and bias against religion. Everyone here could be joking, but I see their words as reflections of my foolishness at a less mature stage of my life, and I really don't like seeing them engaging in the same ignorant, stupid attacks upon religion that I did.

 

[none]

Kharako, it must be quite an insult to your proclivities for somebody to ask for evidence of the God you seem to think is real....

 

[Razncain]

Perhaps 40% of Americans are fucking with atheists because of the way atheists behave?

You don’t see how ridiculous that sounds?

Theistic evolution is basically where it's at. Our minds obviously evolve- so if anything someone can take at least that into account, and extrapolate from there.

Theistic evolution is not feasible if you want a young earth. There wouldn’t have been that much time to have gotten the diversity we now have. It’s a little bit more plausible for an older earth to consider theistic evolution for it, but not by much. If one wanted to go with it, perhaps they have an explanation of 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Kind of makes a divine force behind it look like a blundering buffoon, and certainly no evidence to show ID.

Well, I think both sides have people playing the heel, and I will not name any.

Okay, both sides. If they exist, and since you don’t like atheists, anyway, you could at least name them.

Not if there is a generating function that generates the whole universe with an intact past and future, expanding from one point in time in both directions. In other words, the big bang occurred a few thousand years ago, but the past was created from that point, and the future as well.
I've worked on mathematical functions that generate complex 4 dimensional objects (complex 3d objects that evolve over time), that are complete and whole at t=0, that evolve backwards to a single point and disappear at some -t and some future point +t. So I know that a single function can generate an object that evolves backwards and forwards in time according to certain rules, rules that are caused by the generating function but not the generating function itself.

I'm not saying that this is how the universe evolved (the universe could have evolved over time so that the big bang was t=0), but instead I'm saying that some other point in time could be t=0. I just don't know, and because of the nature of the generating functions I've worked with, I know that this is a possibility (until at some future point in time it is proven that this could not be the case).

If it is the case that it is possible that the universe could be created with a generating function of this type- YECs could be completely correct. Not enough information at this point, all I know is that we live in a dynamic universe, and there are definitely things going on that are not mentioned in any science book that I have read, or been exposed to.

“Not if… could have… may have… not saying… I just don’t know… not enough information at this point…not mentioned in any science book…”

Okay, that is a lot to work with on nailing it all down. I’ll agree with you on one point, this kind of stuff is not in any science book I have read from either. Whatever mathematical model you wanted to propose to be plausible, should run complementary to logic and other sciences as opposed and being so dissimilar to what we now have, or otherwise, had better have an enormous amount of evidence to overturn it. There are none that I’m aware of that would be remotely credible. It would seem inconceivable at this point to think of any young earth and universe model that would be so powerful to overturn much of the sciences of what is already known to give any serious thought to it being a few thousand years old.

Yeah. So I understand the fear, hate, prejudice, and intellectual arrogance of the vehement atheist mindset. After all, it's part of my past. So I suppose that those here remind me of me when I was young, ignorant, inexperienced, with great prejudice and bias against religion. Everyone here could be joking, but I see their words as reflections of my foolishness at a less mature stage of my life, and I really don't like seeing them engaging in the same ignorant, stupid attacks upon religion that I did.

Well, that’s you then, that doesn’t speak for the vast majority of atheists I know, not by a long shot. If it hasn’t been said already, let me be the first to say, sorry, that you as a nonbeliever it didn’t work out too well for you, and sorry for you as a believer it hasn’t worked out too well for you either. If everyone hated anyone that disagreed with them, the world would be facing an epidemic of haters.

Most atheists are reactionary to the actions of certain believers, say creationists e.g., especially when they want creationism taught right alongside evolution in our schools; want the 10 commandments in our schools and courtrooms; have a blatant disregard for basically most if not all of the separation of church and state issues. This is a small sample. I suppose if nonbelievers said and did nothing that would appease the believers, but imagine the America we would be living in if nonbelievers just choose apathy and did nothing.

I don’t know when you had your conversion, but you’ve been here since 2000, that’s 14 years of posting. Was it during this time you changed or before?

Remember some time ago in Alabama the stink conservative Christians raised when they were asked to remove their monument of the 10 commandments? Talk about a bunch of howling yokels, one in particular who was screaming at the top of his lungs, and at the same time crying in front of a court saying that they had better not remove his god’s 10 commandments. Now I’ve seen children have temper tantrums similar to this before, and I must say, I admit, it was comical to see grown people acting like this in public with their holier-than-thou attitude. And of course there were threats made too if any dare remove the monument. And I know this may not sound like much to you, but over time these things would start to add up, and it’s exactly doing nothing, that over time, could easily turn us into a theocracy.

 

[Perspicuo]

Certainly believers and nonbelievers have a different set of pragmatic parameters each are working from. What each group considers good evidence is one of the main things that separates believes and non-believers. Believers tend to be more easily swayed by good story telling, power of suggestion, fallacious arguments, personal testimonials, hearsay, peer pressure, etc. This is good evidence to them. Non-believers can be venerable to such things too, but tend to give it a more skeptical look, will often seek out the sciences more, and want and seek out harder evidence before one generally commits to it being more probably true than not.

Although this is true and I like your wording, whenever one of us writes pieces like this it seems we are making a deep and significant difference between believers and us. What I have read over the years on fora, and blog and news comment sections leads me to conclude that atheists are strongly influenced by the same social pressures and defenses to a compareable degree as religionists. There is peer pressure and groupthink, thoughtless clichés and automatic judgments. Many among the atheists take pride in being some sort of thinking elite, while actually most of their(our) opinions are taken through trust of supposed authorities. Very similar to the behavior the talking simian has always had. The difference is in who we trust and follow, not if we trust and follow.

With Christian faith giving them peace of mind and is pragmatic in that sense, I have no doubt that many get comfort from their faith, what many may consider as nothing more than a placebo effect, but not sure if it is any more than any other religion, so there is no more reason to accept that the Christian faith is the most reasonable for that reason which was what the debate was supposed to be about, let alone it being true. For many Christians that still believe in a fiery hell surely that also causes a nocebo effect.

Religion, if practiced in moderation isn’t such a bad thing, I don’t think. Especially if they don’t take it too seriously, but many kind of had to screw it all up by getting it organized, causing divisions, and many of the negative effects we see of it today which seem to far outweigh any placebo effect some may benefit out of it.

Moderate religion has my seal of approval too. The problem is it's a can of kerosene. Mix it with enough frustration, fear and suspicion and it's a rolling barrel of fire burning down everything in its path.

 

[NobleSavage]

I've had one interaction with him online about one or two points and found him very likable and open enough to change his mind rather than digging his heels in. Which is rare online haha But , I can't help laughing when I read this, from a review

Finally in conclusion he brings all his probabilities together and concludes that Jesus had at best a 32% chance of existing

I'm no scholar but that seems as goofy as the the Drake Equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

 

[Kharakov]

You don’t see how ridiculous that sounds?

Look, I find it very hard to believe that an adult, sans mental problems, believes something is true because it is written in a book. However, I can see that someone could easily believe that the universe was created intact with certain characteristics in place. I've played video games. Never once did I think that the "artifacts", "fossils", etc. that I found in video games were not put there for a purpose (well, except for the bugs).

Theistic evolution is not feasible if you want a young earth.

No. There are multiple scenarios in which theistic evolution could occur, in which there is still a young earth. MRSA evolving (allele frequency increase) now, or perhaps resistance to plague back in the "dark" ages (you know, it would be interesting to look for a specific gene prevalent in European and Mediterranean populations, probably been done).

Well, I think both sides have people playing the heel, and I will not name any.

Okay, both sides. If they exist, and since you don’t like atheists, anyway, you could at least name them.

I love plenty of atheists and theists, I just don't love hate, prejudice, or ignorance on either side of the line. I won't name those who I believe could be playing the heel, in case it is perceived as a personal attack on them. I really don't know if they are heels or not. If it isn't on purpose, I don't really want to mention them (although truthfully, it really, really looks like it is on purpose).

Whatever mathematical model you wanted to propose to be plausible,

Sorry, I included too much information. First the concept of the generating function:

There are certain known mathematical generating functions that generate multidimensional objects with an intact past, present, and future. These objects evolve according to certain rules that can be described by mathematical functions other than the generating function itself.

In other words, the functions that describe the generating function's behaviors from time A to time B, such as how the mathematics of general relativity can describe the change in the bodies of the solar system's relative positions from time A to time B, are caused by the generating function, but the functions that describe the behaviors from point A to point be do not cause behaviors from time A to time B. The behaviors that can be described by certain mathematical functions are caused by an entirely different mathematical function (the GF) than the functions that describe the mathematical behaviors.

The mathematical generating functions I speak of exist- there is no doubt of that. The fact that a mathematical function that can create an object with an intact past, present, and future exists indicates that it is possible for the universe to be such an object as well (although I don't really think it is).

It would seem inconceivable at this point to think of any young earth and universe model that would be so powerful to overturn much of the sciences of what is already known to give any serious thought to it being a few thousand years old.

I doubt the discovery of a generating function that causes various natural patterns would overturn the fact that those natural patterns exist.

Well, that’s you then, that doesn’t speak for the vast majority of atheists I know, not by a long shot.

I see the same types of comments being made that I made, and while I was kind most of the time, I had a certain religiophobic attitude (despite having Christian friends). In fact, a bit of that religiophobia is reflected in any desire to strongly oppose all religion because of the actions and statements of a few religious assholes.

If everyone hated anyone that disagreed with them, the world would be facing an epidemic of haters.

If someone says the exact same type of stuff I said back in my anti-religion days, unless they are joking, they carry the same religiophobia within their heart.

I suppose if nonbelievers said and did nothing that would appease the believers, but imagine the America we would be living in if nonbelievers just choose apathy and did nothing.

Full of fun? Maybe we'd be lucky enough to have Sarah Palin as president!

I don’t know when you had your conversion, but you’ve been here since 2000, that’s 14 years of posting. Was it during this time you changed or before?

I was involved in IIDB back when you didn't use accounts to log in. The old forum style before 2000. I didn't use this account name until mid 2000, and it was sometime after that (2001 or 2002??) that I began to actively consider possibilities other than strict deterministic, metaphysical naturalism. I learned things, and went back and forth for a while as I acquired new information and understanding. It wasn't a "oohh, now I believe" moment, more a "ohh, yeah, now I see how that fits together, it makes more sense now", and things become easier to understand the more I learn (well, in most cases... I don't understand sarcasm whatsoever).

Remember some time ago in Alabama the stink conservative Christians raised when they were asked to remove their monument of the 10 commandments?.... And I know this may not sound like much to you, but over time these things would start to add up, and it’s exactly doing nothing, that over time, could easily turn us into a theocracy.

That's my great fear. A redneck with a stained wife beater will have a couple cars on blocks in front of the White House, and there will be Coor's light cans littering the lawn. I do like Coor's...

 

[Razncain]

Look, I find it very hard to believe that an adult, sans mental problems, believes something is true because it is written in a book. However, I can see that someone could easily believe that the universe was created intact with certain characteristics in place. I've played video games. Never once did I think that the "artifacts", "fossils", etc. that I found in video games were not put there for a purpose (well, except for the bugs).

There are a lot more factors going on for someone to believe in something besides just reading it in a book. Some may even be illiterate. It’s difficult for me to find people that believe in all sorts of weird stuff too, despite when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary to their position such as the creationists, psychics, astrologists, etc, Holocaust deniers, 911 truthers, etc, but they do exist.

No. There are multiple scenarios in which theistic evolution could occur, in which there is still a young earth. MRSA evolving (allele frequency increase) now, or perhaps resistance to plague back in the "dark" ages (you know, it would be interesting to look for a specific gene prevalent in European and Mediterranean populations, probably been done).

I’m not familiar with MRSA or other diseases being used as an argument for a young earth, nor can I fathom how an argument could be presented for it. I’ve read a bit on the Evo/Cre controversy, certainly haven’t heard all of the arguments, and that one escapes me. If you have a cite that covers it, I’ll look at it.

The mathematical generating functions I speak of exist- there is no doubt of that. The fact that a mathematical function that can create an object with an intact past, present, and future exists indicates that it is possible for the universe to be such an object as well (although I don't really think it is).

Carl Sagan considered the possibilities of multiverses. I don’t know how much of that was science though, but simply philosophical discussions. I think Stephen Hawking also has considered, maybe even supports such a hypothesis, not entirely sure, and I know there are others, but I don’t know to what extent, and if it includes an intact past, present and future. The generating functions or series in mathematics would be quite different in how it was applied in physics or cosmology. In the physics community, the hypothesis of multiverses is highly controversial, with some thinking it doesn’t belong in science discussions and it only has merit as a philosophical discussion, while others are more harsh and think it should be considered psuedoscience. Nor have I heard of them using any of it to support a young earth. Personally, I think it’s interesting, but just not sure that much can be done with it scientifically.

Things far easier for me to grasp and support for a very old earth are the strata of sedimentary rocks that are many miles deep in certain basins. Some layers consisting of just a fraction of an inch, others feet, but when you consider the depth that many of these basins can go, and when you figure how much time is involved to create each strata, the various life forms in such layers, the mass extinctions of life over time in various strata, for me, anyway, it erases any such notions of a very young earth.

My journey for all of my adult life is still applying a strict adherence to naturalism. Not sure how others like yourself that once understood and accepted that, could consider otherwise, without it being an extraordinary amount of evidence to override that.

 

[Razncain]

I've had one interaction with him online about one or two points and found him very likable and open enough to change his mind rather than digging his heels in. Which is rare online haha But , I can't help laughing when I read this, from a review

I'm no scholar but that seems as goofy as the the Drake Equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

I suppose most of us generally think in probabilities, but probably not as precise as assigning actual specific numbers, which is what Bayes’ Theorem does. It is popular in probability theory and statistics with mathematicians. We often hear the general consensus from NT scholars is that Jesus was a historical person. That seems only natural; the vast majority of NT scholars are Christians. Carrier devoted a chapter to BT in his latest book, and also assigned probabilities to which would be for the most favorable odds to a historic Jesus he could have possibly given (such as a little more than the 32% figure) as opposed to ones he actually thought were more realistic which had the numbers coming in less than this. And he’s not considering a supernatural Jesus. What ballpark figure would you think is more reasonable?