h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"argueeing a point that have gone to the point of what a word means. BUY A DICTIONARY"

I think you are the one who needs to buy a dictionary.

Look up "arguing".
Hypothesis.
Existence.
Seem.
Discuss.

I would argue that in the long run, Einstein will have a more important impact than Jesus.

SoRB

Why should Einstein have more of an important impact than Jesus. Einstein came up with E=MC^2 the equation of destruction and what the A bomb was based on. I know you can argeue the M=E/C^2 is the equation of creation but that only talk about it.
Jesus had much more of an impact that he saved the world and all of humanity. Plus Einstein died and is dead. Jesus didn't stay dead and since he accended into heaven he is still alive.

Maybe I should buy a dictionary by only to correct my spelling.

"Why should Einstein have more of an important impact than Jesus."

This is one of those times where, if you have to ask the question, you've already demonstrated that you wouldn't understand the answer.

"Einstein came up with E=MC^2 the equation of destruction"

Most amusing. Such a clear-eyed view of the meaning of one of the most beautiful and important relationships in physics. Picture me shaking my head slowly in depressed disbelief.

"I know you can argeue the M=E/C^2 is the equation of creation"

I can't argue anything of the sort, if only because that's a different equation. You obviously don't really know anything about what it means. Why am I even bothering?

"Jesus had much more of an impact that he saved the world and all of humanity."

Um... no he didn't.

Of course, I entirely respect your choice to believe that particular fairy story. But please, don't pester the grownups with it. Also, consider whether the majority of humanity who DON'T believe your particular superstition would agree with you.

"Plus Einstein died and is dead."

Um... yes. That's what death is. Not sure how that matters. His work and his influence on our knowledge of the real world (something you appear not to be very familiar with) lives on.

"Jesus didn't stay dead"



Now, picture me laughing, hard. You people *really believe* this stuff don't you? You know, people point and laugh at Scientologists because of all the Xenu-the-galactic-warlord, atomic-bombs-in-volcanos, thetans-attached-to-humans hokey stuff, but come on, Christians, have you ever listened to yourselves?

Jesus didn't stay dead? You are positively begging to be ridiculed. I mean, it's a lovely fairy story to tell the children and everything, you know, maybe after they've had a hamster or a grandparent die. But come on, don't you get over it and grow out of that nonsense by the time your age is in double figures? And if not, why not?

I mean, you don't believe in Santa any more, right? And the tooth fairy? Or do you? I mean, if you believe this whole "he's not dead" business, you clearly would believe *anything*.

"and since he accended into heaven he is still alive."

OK. I don't need to talk to you any more. I'm trying to have a conversation between grownups about the real world. Children's fairy stories are at best a distraction.

SoRB

It is ironic that someone who patently can't spell is telling us to buy a dictionary!

Now, in the search for truth, there is scientific truth and historical truth.

Scientific truth: A mass of one tonne will fall at the same speed as one kilogramme. We can repeat Gallileo's experiment and confirm it still holds true.

Historical truth: Did something happen or not? (Abiogenesis, the Resurrection of Jesus)

I would have thought abiogenesis would fit the first category, but SoRB insists it belongs in the second category, in which case the resurrection has the advantage over abiogenesis in that at least we have the testimony of those who claim they witnessed it.

Frank Morrison's book from a lawyer's perspective is interesting on this resurrection topic. (Frank Morrison was an atheist). It was written with the intention of debunking Christianity, but in the course of his research the author reconsidered his opinion.

I found this overview:

The strangeness of the Resurrection story had captured Frank Morison's attention, and, influenced by skeptic thinkers at the turn of the century, he set out to prove that the story of Christ's Ressurrection was only a myth. His probings, however, led him to discover the validity of the biblical record in a moving personal way. "Who Moved the Stone?" is considered by many to be a classic apologetic on the subject of the Resurrection. Morison includes a vivid and poignant account of Christ's betrayal, trial, and death as a backdrop to his retelling of the climactic Resurrection itself.

"the resurrection has the advantage over abiogenesis in that at least we have the testimony of those who claim they witnessed it."

Incorrect, on two counts.

You have here two events which are claimed to have happened:
1. Life arose from non-living matter by normal chemical means over a period of geological ages.
2. A specific human died and then came back to life after three days.

Option 1 has no witness, which is as you should expect.
Option 2 has witnesses, but these witnesses are (a) not medically qualified, (b) have a vested interest in reporting a particular version of events and (c) are all long dead in any case.

The so-called witnesses in case 2 are so unreliable as to be worse than useless - in the situation they were in, one would positively EXPECT them to fabricate precisely the story we hear. Why? Because it is a repeated version, with minor modifications, of other resurrection myths from other cultures going back to ancient Egypt and beyond. Therefore the fact that witnesses to event 2 report a story suspiciously similar to other resurrection myths actually makes their testimony less reliable.

An analogy: people used to report seeing objects in the sky. Occasionally, these objects would have crews, and people would claim to have met them, even been abducted by them. The descriptions of these aliens used to be quite varied - tall, short, green, yellow, mammalian, reptiloid and so on. However, as time progressed, one particular "design" of alien became prevalent - the "Grey". Shortish, almond shaped eyes, no nose, lipless mouth, thin limbs. We all know what they look like.

The thing is, if someone now reports being abducted by "Greys", what do we conclude? That there is a race of such beings, and they have somehow over recent years supplanted the more varied aliens which used to abduct people? Or... that the people reporting abductions are, for whatever reason and whatever level, fabricating these stories - and, crucially, fabricating stories SIMILAR TO EXISTING ONES because that will make them more credible? Which is the more believeable explanation?

Going back to the resurrection story - which is the more believeable explanation? That a man who was dead for three days came back to life? Or that some people made up a story about it, and, crucially, made up a story similar to other existing such stories, so that it would be more credible?

I know which one seems the more likely to me.



Second, here's the thing: life arose. This fact is undeniable. Abiogenesis is the best, most widely accepted explanation for how it arose. This fact is also undeniable. Whether it is correct, is arguable. But it's definitely the best explanation we have for the undeniable presence of life.

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, where are the undeniable facts? To my knowledge, there is not even consensus among objective (i.e. non-religious) historians as whether he even existed in the first place. IF he existed, then one thing is certain - he died. That, IF he existed, is undeniable fact number 1. Unfortunately, the only other undeniable fact you have is that some people *say* he then came back to life.

What is the *best* explanation for these two facts? He lived, and some people say he came back to life after he died? You may *choose* to believe that the best explanation is that it happened. However, if you've any pretence to objectivity, you have to admit that the best explanation of the facts is that the people telling the story made it up. IF he existed in the first place, the people who knew him made up a story about his resurrection. There are very, very good reasons why they would do so, and very good reasons why the story would be perpetuated.

Just as there are very good reasons why we tell children to be good or Santa won't come. We desire control over their behaviour. And we wish them to be entertained by a fun story. But even small children start to learn early that the *best* explanation for presents on Christmas morning is not a fat man in a flying sleigh - it's their parents. I'm continually amazed that otherwise apparently intelligent people grow out of one fairy story but not another.

SoRB

The question of the magic spark and can life come from nothing reminds me that I saw a programme about early experiments with electricity. If I remember correctly small organisms appeared following massive discharges of electricity.
So maybe there was a magic spark or something that triggered off the hole thing.

The other thing that intrigues me, and sorry to raise Star Trek, Star Wars and Dr. Who, but how come perceived alien life forms which have no hands and no manual dexterity can construct crafts and assemble components akin to those that we have on earth. I suppose that the stock answer is that they do it with their minds –Ha Ha!

I seem to recall that Morison came from his investigation from the point of view that everything in the Bible is true/fact. He then tried to find evidence to disprove this. He could not.

Had he come from it the other way: that everything in the Bible was untrue/fairy stories and tried to find evidence proving the Bible was fact he probably would have found that the only ‘evidence’ for Jesus’ death and resurrection comes from source material called the Bible and he would, possibly, conclude, the Bible was not fact.

As for Morisons re-telling what was his source material? The Bible? Not much a of re-telling is it?

This is all a good example of Christian logic:

How do you know God exists? Because it says so in the Bible.
Why does the Bible exist? Because God spoke to prophets and sent down his only Son.
How do you know this? Because it says so in the Bible.

Reminds me of the classic Goon show when Eccles has the time written down on a piece of paper!

Hey SoRB

"the resurrection has the advantage over abiogenesis in that at least we have the testimony of those who claim they witnessed it."

This is not incorrect. There were witnesses to the resurrection. You may not believe them, they may have made it up, but while there is no testimony concerning abiogenesis we have testimony concerning the resurrection, which is an advantage.

The consensus among serious historians is that Jesus lived.

Now, we can see life arose 'cos it's here. But that tells us nothing of how it arose.

You admit it is arguable whether abiogenesis is correct. You assert it is the best, most widely accepted explanation the undeniable presence of life, assuming you exclude God as a possible instigator. What it boils down to is it's the only alternative to believing in God.

If you decide to exclude God, then since life is here abiogenesis of some kind must be true (whether on earth or on another planet ie. panspermia). This doesn't prove it's true, or that God doesn't exist.

Similarly, if it could be demonstrated that abiogenesis could not possibly be true, then you'd be left with the God option. In fact, if God created life out of non-life, that actually brings us back to abiogenesis anyway, if you think about it.

Let's say you could prove abiogenesis was true, that still would not exclude the possibility of God in any way.


Returning to the topic of the resurrection, it was the very people that claimed to have witnessed it who were responsible for the rapid spread of Christianity in the first century. When Jesus died, Christianity was dead in the water. His demoralised followers scattered and went into hiding fearing for their lives. Something transformed them into fearless proclaimers of the resurrection.


There are very, very good reasons why they would have shut up about Jesus and disappeared for their own good after his crucifixion. We know HISTORICALLY that ten of the twelve were martyred. This shows they didn't make their claims lightly, and they weren't just telling tales.

When Sorb writes "I'm continually amazed that otherwise apparently intelligent people grow out of one fairy story but not another", it's because he doesn't understand that there's a historical basis to the story of Jesus. That's where it differs from fairy stories.

WG

"This is not incorrect. There were witnesses to the resurrection."

I repeat - there is not a consensus among objective, non-religious historians that Jesus even existed in the first place. Therefore the existence of witnesses to his resurrection is open to debate.

"You may not believe them, they may have made it up, but while there is no testimony concerning abiogenesis we have testimony concerning the resurrection, which is an advantage."

Testimony of witnesses whose very existence cannot be confirmed, to an event which they say occurred to a man whose existence cannot be confirmed, is no advantage.

"The consensus among serious historians is that Jesus lived."

Really? This is not the information I have. I note you say "serious" historians, rather than "objective", which was the very specific word I used to differentiate those whose objectivity might be tainted by superstition.

"Now, we can see life arose 'cos it's here. But that tells us nothing of how it arose."

It doesn't tell us *nothing*. What it tells us is indistinct and inconclusive, but it's not *nothing*.

"You admit it is arguable whether abiogenesis is correct."

I don't "admit" it. I state it as blindingly obvious fact.

"You assert it is the best, most widely accepted explanation the undeniable presence of life, assuming you exclude God as a possible instigator."

No, I do not.

I assert it is the best, most widely accepted explantion. Indeed, YOU assert that it is the best most widely accepted explanation. No assumptions regarding your chosen superstition are necessary.

"What it boils down to is it's the only alternative to believing in God."

No, it is not. If you lack the imagination to come up with other alternatives, the reason for your reliance on primitive superstition becomes clearer.

"If you decide to exclude God"

One does not decide to exclude gods. One examines the evidence, and tries to infer a mechanism.

The question I have never heard a sensible answer to from anyone is this: why would you ever INclude gods as a possible "explanation"? Why would it occur to you to suggest such a basically ridiculous and ultimately non-explanatory idea?

"...then since life is here abiogenesis of some kind must be true"

I say again - if you cannot conceive of an alternate explanation, then I begin to understand why you are superstitious.

"(whether on earth or on another planet ie. panspermia)."

One does tire of having to repeat oneself. Panspermia is NOT an explanation for the origin of life. It is only a possible explanation for the presence of life on earth. The ONLY thing the panspermia hypothesis does is shift the location of the question from the surface of the earth to somewhere out in space. If life did not start here, how did it start out there?

It is quite tiring having these conversations. Have you ever had a conversation with a small child - five years old, say? "Put your shoes on." "Why?" "Because I said so." "Why?" "Because I want you to put your shoes on." "Why?" "Because you need to." "Why?", etc. etc. etc. Notice that at no stage in that exchange has the fundamental question - "why should I put my shoes on?" - been answered. All the so-called answers do is deflect the question, causing the persistent child to simply ask it again. This tends to irritate the adult, who usually resorts to the awful phrase "Because I said so".

And this is how superstitious people answer the question of life's origins - with non-answers. "How did life begin?". "God did it." "How did God begin." "He didn't. He's eternal.", or whatever. Evasive nonsense, all of it, designed to make you give up in disgust and go away, anything to stop them having to actually attempt to engage their brain and answer the damn question.

The rational adult, on the other hand, says "Put your shoes on", and to the question "Why?" responds "Because we're going to Toys R Us and I won't take you if you don't wear your shoes." Trust me, the shoes go on, sharpish, because the question has been answered.

Similarly, the rational adult, when asked about the origin of life, has the courage to admit they do not know, but offers the best answer they have, an answer that explains the evidence and does not beg further questions.

"This doesn't prove it's true, or that God doesn't exist."

It is logically impossible to prove that gods don't exist, for precisely the same reason it is logically impossible to prove that leprechauns, unicorns and Bigfoot don't exist. However, only a cretin would believe in something merely because they can't prove it doesn't exist.

The burden of proof here is on the believer. You believe in fairies - fine, great, whatever. Prove to me they're there. Show me one. Let me talk to one. Etc. Similarly - you want to believe in a god? Great, whatever. But please, before you use your personal chosen superstition to explain something about the real world, you have to go through one crucial step first - prove he exists. Do that, and then we can talk. Until then, we're just talking about something going on inside your head, when we're trying to talk about the world out there.

"Similarly, if it could be demonstrated that abiogenesis could not possibly be true, then you'd be left with the God option."

Yet again with the failure of imagination. This is what is known as the fallacy of the false dichotomy. "Theory A is not true, therefore theory B MUST be"! Garbage. Just because you, personally, can't think of any other answer, doesn't mean there are none. This is the usual wonderful combination of ignorance and arrogance one rapidly comes to expect from the religious.

"In fact, if God created life out of non-life, that actually brings us back to abiogenesis anyway, if you think about it."

Actually, no, it doesn't. Because by definition your god is life. So if he creates life, that isn't actually the origin of life. So it's not abiogenesis, if you REALLY think about it.

"Let's say you could prove abiogenesis was true"

How about we don't say that, because to do so would be unutterably stupid given that I've already demonstrated that it is impossible even in principle?

"that still would not exclude the possibility of God in any way."

Of course. That is the advantage of your particular chosen superstition. It is unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence is produced against it, you always have a get-out clause to explain it away. This is what distinguishes it as something happening inside your head, rather than something happening out here in the real universe.

"Returning to the topic of the resurrection"

Must we? For the sake of argument, I will accept for now that it is possible that Jesus existed, rather than being a fictional character.

"it was the very people that claimed to have witnessed it who were responsible for the rapid spread of Christianity in the first century."

Really? How many of the gospels were written by people who personally witnessed the resurrection?

"When Jesus died, Christianity was dead in the water."

Interesting observation, with which I agree. Do you not consider this to be ample motivation for his followers to come up with a better story?

"His demoralised followers scattered and went into hiding fearing for their lives. Something transformed them into fearless proclaimers of the resurrection."

One need only look around this world of suicide bombers and other martyrs to understand that it takes only a little brainwashing to transform someone into a "fearless proclaimer" of whatever nonsense you choose to stuff into their head.

"There are very, very good reasons why they would have shut up about Jesus and disappeared for their own good after his crucifixion."

And there are also very, very good reasons why, given that these people had based their entire world-view on the divinity of Jesus, that they would do anything not to contradict that. Are you familiar with the concept of cognitive dissonance?

"We know HISTORICALLY that ten of the twelve were martyred. This shows they didn't make their claims lightly, and they weren't just telling tales."

I absolutely disagree. We know historically that when people believe something strongly - like, say, that the guy they've given up their lives to follow is the son of a god and immortal - if they are presented with direct evidence to the contrary - like, say, him being killed - they will act irrationally in response to this disconfirmed expectancy, making up rationalisations for what they've seen - like, say, that he came back to life later and ascended into heaven.

This is a well-recognised phenomenon in psychology. It is frequently demonstrated by members of doomsday cults. People are told to expect the end of the world or alien invasion on a certain date. The date comes and goes, with, duh, no invasion. The RATIONAL response is disappointment, anger, and rejection of the nonsense one has been peddled. Yet, again and again, the actual observed response from a significant number of such people is not rejection, but increased belief with rationalisation for the failure of the prophecy. They are so invested in their world view that they cannot reject it.

This, to me, is clearly what happened with the apostles. These were men who had given up years of their lives to follow this man around listening to his teachings, believing him to be immortal. Presented with cast-iron proof of his mortality, they rejected it and rationalised it. It makes perfect sense if one has an objective and realistic view of human nature, and proper information (like, for instance, knowledge of the existence of cognitive dissonance. If you'd known about cognitive dissonance, you would not have suggested that the apostles couldn't be making it up, when it's so obvious that not only *could* they, they'd have VERY good reason to.)

"When Sorb writes "I'm continually amazed that otherwise apparently intelligent people grow out of one fairy story but not another", it's because he doesn't understand that there's a historical basis to the story of Jesus."

I understand perfectly well that there may be some historical basis to the story of Jesus. However, that historical basis is the life of a man who spun a good yarn and knew some basic conjuring tricks. That otherwise intelligent people believe and buy into the fairy stories that have spun out of that story is what amazes me. Historicity or otherwise is entirely irrelevant.

"That's where it differs from fairy stories"

Now, there's an interesting point. In fact, that is precisely where the story of Jesus is exactly like other fairy stories, because other fairy stories have a basis in fact, too. The Pied Piper of Hamelin, Ring a Ring A Roses, the boy who cried wolf, many of these stories are fables designed to teach children principles of ethics and behaviour. In that, they are exactly like the story of Jesus. The intelligent child absorbs the lesson and leaves behind the belief in magic, miracles and fairies. Unfortunately, some slower types never really grow out of believing in the magic stuff. It is these people who dowse for water, use crystals to treat illnesses, and pray for help with problems. Me, I'll stick to knowledge of geology, double-blind tested drugs, and taking responsibility for my own life.

SoRB

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

I repeat - there is not a consensus among objective, non-religious historians that Jesus even existed in the first place.


Oh yes there is!!

Sorb:"There is not a consensus among objective, non-religious historians that Jesus even existed in the first place."

Before you start talking total clap trap get your facts right.

You be pushed to find an objective historian who didn't agree in the historicity of Jesus.

Darn, just as it was getting interesting(read fun) a Bank Holiday Weekend appears.

Where's the smiley?

WelshGenghis: I suggest you do some research on Mithras.

There you are.

Aside from the observation that "facts" in this sort of thing are by definition impossible to come by, after a little research I do admit that in fact, the consensus among historians does indeed seem to be that Jesus was an historical figure.

I'm amused by this quote from wikipedia: "Arthur Schopenhauer argued that the best proof of the historicity of Jesus is his failure to keep his promise that he would return."

So, there you go - a prime example of the scientific method in action. I presented a hypothesis - that Jesus is not accepted as a historical figure. I researched the facts. I find my hypothesis in error. I admit this, and reject the hypothesis.

Unfortunately, none of the rest of my argument is in any way affected by Jesus's existence or otherwise. So, a human named Jesus lived, and died. That is a fact. The rest is as I have stated.

SoRB

<>

Give us one, solitary piece of physical proof that Jesus existed.

Such as Pontius Pilate's execution order for example. The Romans kept meticulous records. I could probably find what Caesar had for breakfast the day Brutus did him in, but Pilate never thought to record that he'd just executed a religious zealot. He kept records when he crucified murderers, but not the King of the Jews?

In fact there is not a single piece of contemporary documentary evidence that links to his existence. Everything ever written about him came well after he was dead.

Sorry, alive again.

Sorry, dead again.

All the evidence is hearsay. Not enough to convict a shoplifter, far less prove a messiah.

From wikipedia (so it must be true...)

A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus' historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ; it is based on: a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and alleged similarities between early Christianity and contemporary mythology.[65]

Perhaps the most prolific of these scholars disputing the historical existence of Jesus is George Albert Wells. In more recent times, it has been advocated by Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price.

This view has not found acceptance by the historical community. Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:

…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.