Doc Holliday said:

---

Fun fact:

Evolutionary game theory proves that the reality presented to us being fundamental is 0%. Species ran through revolutionary game theory who see realty as the absolute truth always die off.

What this means is the reality around is us presented to us so that we survive and it's WILDLY different from the actual underlying reality.

An easy way to understand this is imagine playing Grand theft Auto in VR and you're trying to drive a car. Realize that what you're doing in the game is controlled by a joystick, but in reality you're toggling millions of voltages in a computer. You don't want to know about the diodes and the resistors and all the electronics inside there nor all the magnetic fields and voltages plus all the software. You couldn't calculate that on your own.

We are given an interface. Much like a VR headset.

This whole notion that 3D spacetime is all there is and hardcore physicalism is fundamental is total BS. There's no operational meaning beyond Planck scale. Planck is a very shallow data structure as well.

We are most likely parts/agents of pure unbound consciousness at the fundamental level. That consciousness is God. I fully believe that. I also believe Jesus was fully conscious.

We can show axiomatically using mathematical metaphysics and logic that unbound syntax is enough for something like consciousness/perception to self create. There is no such thing as nothingness. If there was absolute nothingness (there isn't) you would still have potential, which is something.

---

Doc, I was able to watch the video you posted earlier in the thread and I forgot to respond. I thought Hoffman did an exceptional job at explaining reality all the way down to the quantum level and how this affects our perception of reality. The channel itself is a gem and I have subscribed.

A VR Headset really is an excellent way to put it. Your conclusion that this consciousness is God is a completely rational perspective. Interestingly enough, this is somewhat similar to what Hinduism believes.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

---

There is no contradiction that I can point to and say "this is it, this unravels everything!" - it is the collective contradictions along with (I don't think you'll disagree with this), objective proof that some of the gospels written later used other gospels and even copied many things word for word losing its status as an independent source.

For contradictions though, let's start with a simple one: the genealogy of Jesus.

---

First of all, a source that copies previous sources is how history gets passed down, so I don't see why this is a problem, especially if it is copied word for word as you say, and as long as the primary source is authentic and reliable. And I don't think it "loses its status as an independent source" so as long it gives new information and perspective outside of the parts it copied.

Regarding the "apparent" contradiction of the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, it can be resolved by attributing one geneaology to Joseph and the other to Mary. Or, it's possible that Joseph had a biological father (by seed) and a legal father (inheritance laws in Deuteronomy). This is explained in a youtube video called (different geneaologies? bible contradiction #1). Having both geneaologies would prove that either way, biologically or legally, Jesus' line follows to both Abraham (son of God by faith) and Adam (son of God by creation).

---

If a document copies another document, it 100% loses its status as an independent source - this is critiquing antiquity 101. But, the original document can still yes be reliable and considered an independent source.

I have heard the same explanation from Christian apologists multiple times on the genealogy differences, but it hasn't convinced me. I personally believe that the authors of the gospels crafted Jesus' lineage as part of the meaning behind the narrative. However, to keep things concise, let's focus on Matthew and Luke's genealogies since they intersect.

Upon closer inspection, both gospels trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph. There are a few differences here, but one of the most evident ones are when they go back to Zorobabel, son of Shealtiel. Matthew reports that Shealtiel's father was Jechonias, whereas Luke names Neri as his father.

I'm sure there are numerous and very creative ways apologists have worked around this. Does this derail the message of the gospels? Absolutely not - but a contradiction nonetheless.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fun fact:

Evolutionary game theory proves that the reality presented to us being fundamental is 0%. Species ran through revolutionary game theory who see realty as the absolute truth always die off.

What this means is the reality around is us presented to us so that we survive and it's WILDLY different from the actual underlying reality.

An easy way to understand this is imagine playing Grand theft Auto in VR and you're trying to drive a car. Realize that what you're doing in the game is controlled by a joystick, but in reality you're toggling millions of voltages in a computer. You don't want to know about the diodes and the resistors and all the electronics inside there nor all the magnetic fields and voltages plus all the software. You couldn't calculate that on your own.

We are given an interface. Much like a VR headset.

This whole notion that 3D spacetime is all there is and hardcore physicalism is fundamental is total BS. There's no operational meaning beyond Planck scale. Planck is a very shallow data structure as well.

We are most likely parts/agents of pure unbound consciousness at the fundamental level. That consciousness is God. I fully believe that. I also believe Jesus was fully conscious.

We can show axiomatically using mathematical metaphysics and logic that unbound syntax is enough for something like consciousness/perception to self create. There is no such thing as nothingness. If there was absolute nothingness (there isn't) you would still have potential, which is something.

---

So did you choose the red pill or the blue pill? Just kidding.

Very interesting how there may be mathematical/logical proof of what many have instinctively known, and believe to be self-evident - that there is an underlying reality to all we sense, a Mind which started it all. From where our "souls"/consciousness originate. That the physical isn't all there is, and that it is just the medium in which we play out our conscious lives.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

---

There is no contradiction that I can point to and say "this is it, this unravels everything!" - it is the collective contradictions along with (I don't think you'll disagree with this), objective proof that some of the gospels written later used other gospels and even copied many things word for word losing its status as an independent source.

For contradictions though, let's start with a simple one: the genealogy of Jesus.

---

First of all, a source that copies previous sources is how history gets passed down, so I don't see why this is a problem, especially if it is copied word for word as you say, and as long as the primary source is authentic and reliable. And I don't think it "loses its status as an independent source" so as long it gives new information and perspective outside of the parts it copied.

Regarding the "apparent" contradiction of the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, it can be resolved by attributing one geneaology to Joseph and the other to Mary. Or, it's possible that Joseph had a biological father (by seed) and a legal father (inheritance laws in Deuteronomy). This is explained in a youtube video called (different geneaologies? bible contradiction #1). Having both geneaologies would prove that either way, biologically or legally, Jesus' line follows to both Abraham (son of God by faith) and Adam (son of God by creation).

---

If a document copies another document, it 100% loses its status as an independent source - this is critiquing antiquity 101. But, the original document can still yes be reliable and considered an independent source.

I have heard the same explanation from Christian apologists multiple times on the genealogy differences, but it hasn't convinced me. I personally believe that the authors of the gospels crafted Jesus' lineage as part of the meaning behind the narrative. However, to keep things concise, let's focus on Matthew and Luke's genealogies since they intersect.

Upon closer inspection, both gospels trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph. There are a few differences here, but one of the most evident ones are when they go back to Zorobabel, son of Shealtiel. Matthew reports that Shealtiel's father was Jechonias, whereas Luke names Neri as his father.

I'm sure there are numerous and very creative ways apologists have worked around this. Does this derail the message of the gospels? Absolutely not - but a contradiction nonetheless.

---

In your view, what does derail the message of the Gospel?

BaylorJacket said:

---

If a document copies another document, it 100% loses its status as an independent source - this is critiquing antiquity 101. But, the original document can still yes be reliable and considered an independent source.

I have heard the same explanation from Christian apologists multiple times on the genealogy differences, but it hasn't convinced me. I personally believe that the authors of the gospels crafted Jesus' lineage as part of the meaning behind the narrative. However, to keep things concise, let's focus on Matthew and Luke's genealogies since they intersect.

Upon closer inspection, both gospels trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph. There are a few differences here, but one of the most evident ones are when they go back to Zorobabel, son of Shealtiel. Matthew reports that Shealtiel's father was Jechonias, whereas Luke names Neri as his father.

I'm sure there are numerous and very creative ways apologists have worked around this. Does this derail the message of the gospels? Absolutely not - but a contradiction nonetheless.

---

As you know, Matthew was written for the Hebrew audience. I'm sure that read that he uses 3 sets of 14 generations for a reason. You also know that numbers were extremely important is to that culture. 7 is the perfect number and 14 is essentially double perfection.

Having said that, no serious NT scholar will state that there were exactly 14 generations of each set. There may be a reason that Shealtiel's Luke and Matthew choose different names for his father. The Hebrew culture was not conscripted to the literal uses of the word "father" . Neri or Jechonias could have been father, grand or great-grand father to Shealtiel.

Lastly, I've suggested this book to Texas Scientist here at least three times, but Trent Horn's Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties is a book that answers many of the skeptic's challenges to bible "contradictions."

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

---

There is no contradiction that I can point to and say "this is it, this unravels everything!" - it is the collective contradictions along with (I don't think you'll disagree with this), objective proof that some of the gospels written later used other gospels and even copied many things word for word losing its status as an independent source.

For contradictions though, let's start with a simple one: the genealogy of Jesus.

---

First of all, a source that copies previous sources is how history gets passed down, so I don't see why this is a problem, especially if it is copied word for word as you say, and as long as the primary source is authentic and reliable. And I don't think it "loses its status as an independent source" so as long it gives new information and perspective outside of the parts it copied.

Regarding the "apparent" contradiction of the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, it can be resolved by attributing one geneaology to Joseph and the other to Mary. Or, it's possible that Joseph had a biological father (by seed) and a legal father (inheritance laws in Deuteronomy). This is explained in a youtube video called (different geneaologies? bible contradiction #1). Having both geneaologies would prove that either way, biologically or legally, Jesus' line follows to both Abraham (son of God by faith) and Adam (son of God by creation).

---

If a document copies another document, it 100% loses its status as an independent source - this is critiquing antiquity 101. But, the original document can still yes be reliable and considered an independent source.

I have heard the same explanation from Christian apologists multiple times on the genealogy differences, but it hasn't convinced me. I personally believe that the authors of the gospels crafted Jesus' lineage as part of the meaning behind the narrative. However, to keep things concise, let's focus on Matthew and Luke's genealogies since they intersect.

Upon closer inspection, both gospels trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph. There are a few differences here, but one of the most evident ones are when they go back to Zorobabel, son of Shealtiel. Matthew reports that Shealtiel's father was Jechonias, whereas Luke names Neri as his father.

I'm sure there are numerous and very creative ways apologists have worked around this. Does this derail the message of the gospels? Absolutely not - but a contradiction nonetheless.

---

Like I said, if a source copies another source for only PART of its text, then it can still be an independent source for the other parts. This is logic and reason 101.

Regarding the geneaologies - by "creative ways to work around this" do you mean perfectly reasonable and possible ways it might have happened, but it doesn't fit my narrative? The difference between Jechonias and Neri may be due to biological vs. legal also. Because neither of us can prove it true or false, but must rather speculate, this "contradiction" doesn't necessarily damage the historical reliability of the gospels.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fun fact:

Evolutionary game theory proves that the reality presented to us being fundamental is 0%. Species ran through revolutionary game theory who see realty as the absolute truth always die off.

What this means is the reality around is us presented to us so that we survive and it's WILDLY different from the actual underlying reality.

An easy way to understand this is imagine playing Grand theft Auto in VR and you're trying to drive a car. Realize that what you're doing in the game is controlled by a joystick, but in reality you're toggling millions of voltages in a computer. You don't want to know about the diodes and the resistors and all the electronics inside there nor all the magnetic fields and voltages plus all the software. You couldn't calculate that on your own.

We are given an interface. Much like a VR headset.

This whole notion that 3D spacetime is all there is and hardcore physicalism is fundamental is total BS. There's no operational meaning beyond Planck scale. Planck is a very shallow data structure as well.

We are most likely parts/agents of pure unbound consciousness at the fundamental level. That consciousness is God. I fully believe that. I also believe Jesus was fully conscious.

We can show axiomatically using mathematical metaphysics and logic that unbound syntax is enough for something like consciousness/perception to self create. There is no such thing as nothingness. If there was absolute nothingness (there isn't) you would still have potential, which is something.

---

Doc, I was able to watch the video you posted earlier in the thread and I forgot to respond. I thought Hoffman did an exceptional job at explaining reality all the way down to the quantum level and how this affects our perception of reality. The channel itself is a gem and I have subscribed.

A VR Headset really is an excellent way to put it. Your conclusion that this consciousness is God is a completely rational perspective. Interestingly enough, this is somewhat similar to what Hinduism believes.

---

Awesome! Glad you got to watch it, it's fascinating stuff.

I've always been intrigued with cosmogony, even as a kid. The Big Bang was never enough: I always asked "what caused that?", or "how/why did reality construct itself in this particular manner and not another?".

It's also the most complex subject on the planet lol, especially when you start diving into smashing atoms together and how they're using objects outside of spacetime to calculate probabilities.

Very similar to Hinduism, even Buddhism. Their take would be that a singular consciousness lives out every single human life (reincarnation).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fun fact:

Evolutionary game theory proves that the reality presented to us being fundamental is 0%. Species ran through revolutionary game theory who see realty as the absolute truth always die off.

What this means is the reality around is us presented to us so that we survive and it's WILDLY different from the actual underlying reality.

An easy way to understand this is imagine playing Grand theft Auto in VR and you're trying to drive a car. Realize that what you're doing in the game is controlled by a joystick, but in reality you're toggling millions of voltages in a computer. You don't want to know about the diodes and the resistors and all the electronics inside there nor all the magnetic fields and voltages plus all the software. You couldn't calculate that on your own.

We are given an interface. Much like a VR headset.

This whole notion that 3D spacetime is all there is and hardcore physicalism is fundamental is total BS. There's no operational meaning beyond Planck scale. Planck is a very shallow data structure as well.

We are most likely parts/agents of pure unbound consciousness at the fundamental level. That consciousness is God. I fully believe that. I also believe Jesus was fully conscious.

We can show axiomatically using mathematical metaphysics and logic that unbound syntax is enough for something like consciousness/perception to self create. There is no such thing as nothingness. If there was absolute nothingness (there isn't) you would still have potential, which is something.

---

So did you choose the red pill or the blue pill? Just kidding.

Very interesting how there may be mathematical/logical proof of what many have instinctively known, and believe to be self-evident - that there is an underlying reality to all we sense, a Mind which started it all. From where our "souls"/consciousness originate. That the physical isn't all there is, and that it is just the medium in which we play out our conscious lives.

---

Well said!

Maybe we've all just been "sitting" in the same spot for eternity trying on different headsets. It's terrifying and beautiful at the same time.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

I don't think you can prove the existence of God. You can only make belief in it plausible.

The universal moral standard argument by CS Lewis is pretty good. I also like his argument that our need/want for a creator and relationship with the creator is some evidence for the existence of one. A longstanding, widespread desire for something implies the existence of the thing that fulfills it. Hunger implies food. Tiredness implies sleep. Etc. We are looking for something that, based on our hunger, reasonably should exist. Otherwise, why is the hunger there? Some of the intelligent design arguments, though they fall short of proof, add to plausibility. A thousand monkeys typing into forever might never type Shakespeare. They might just type a whole lot of gibberish.

None of this gets you to proof. But I think you can cobble together enough arguments to make belief plausible.

---

That's an interesting thought. I've heard that argument before, but did not know it had an official name.

To a similar tone, I heard an argument the other day that we close the "Faith Gap" by what we hope to be true (unknowingly). While everyone's situation is unique, this may be possible in my case as I personally had a very difficult time with the concept of Hell/the problem of Evil even as a young child. Perhaps I never wanted it to be true subconsciously?

---

I commend to you the works of Peter Kreeft. Check out his web site for some basic answers then explore his books. He has a lot to offer. Can't do him justice here, but a short take on salvation posits a post mortem personal encounter with Christ at which time everyone will either accept or reject Him. Blessings for your journey.

Exactly. If we "knew", then it wouldn't be faith.

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

And so, now, you've heard, and mostly rejected, thoughts on why various participants think or believe God exists. Let's end this thread.

Go on your search and when you find something you firmly believe in, then feel free to report back with your conclusions and evidence in support of such. Until then, you are, at this point, essentially trolling, whether intentional or not.

There's no reason for anyone to further address your questions. You have stated nothing about yourself that suggests that you are entitled to absolute proof of God's existence or anything else for that matter. Get over yourself and your disappointment in God. If you find a better way or faith, feel free to report back. But for now, you are simply wasting everyone's time.

And for those who are in Christ that would question the "harshness" of this post, recall that Jesus instructed his disciples as He sent them out that they could shake off the dust of their sandals as a testimony against villages that would not receive their teaching. Likewise, Jesus said it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment.

For those who are in Christ, do not entertain or respond to this person anymore. It is a waste of time, and, at best, he seems mostly intent on tearing others' faith down without any better substitute. If he finds what he thinks is truth, then let him present and defend it. Otherwise, you will continue to get denial and disbelief with no definition of truth. Further discourse with Baylorjacket on this thread is folly. Do not engage in it, again, if you are in Christ as he presents no better way.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

---

There is no contradiction that I can point to and say "this is it, this unravels everything!" - it is the collective contradictions along with (I don't think you'll disagree with this), objective proof that some of the gospels written later used other gospels and even copied many things word for word losing its status as an independent source.

For contradictions though, let's start with a simple one: the genealogy of Jesus.

---

First of all, a source that copies previous sources is how history gets passed down, so I don't see why this is a problem, especially if it is copied word for word as you say, and as long as the primary source is authentic and reliable. And I don't think it "loses its status as an independent source" so as long it gives new information and perspective outside of the parts it copied.

Regarding the "apparent" contradiction of the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, it can be resolved by attributing one geneaology to Joseph and the other to Mary. Or, it's possible that Joseph had a biological father (by seed) and a legal father (inheritance laws in Deuteronomy). This is explained in a youtube video called (different geneaologies? bible contradiction #1). Having both geneaologies would prove that either way, biologically or legally, Jesus' line follows to both Abraham (son of God by faith) and Adam (son of God by creation).

---

If a document copies another document, it 100% loses its status as an independent source - this is critiquing antiquity 101. But, the original document can still yes be reliable and considered an independent source.

I have heard the same explanation from Christian apologists multiple times on the genealogy differences, but it hasn't convinced me. I personally believe that the authors of the gospels crafted Jesus' lineage as part of the meaning behind the narrative. However, to keep things concise, let's focus on Matthew and Luke's genealogies since they intersect.

Upon closer inspection, both gospels trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph. There are a few differences here, but one of the most evident ones are when they go back to Zorobabel, son of Shealtiel. Matthew reports that Shealtiel's father was Jechonias, whereas Luke names Neri as his father.

I'm sure there are numerous and very creative ways apologists have worked around this. Does this derail the message of the gospels? Absolutely not - but a contradiction nonetheless.

---

In your view, what does derail the message of the Gospel?

---

I'd say the following are some of the key reasons I don't believe the claims:
- As I studied the Bible cover to cover, I found many discrepancies and contradicting messages. Once the Bible lost its status of inerrant (from my perspective), I started studying the gospels more closely
- As mentioned earlier, the discrepancies in the gospels certainly threw me off, but I think one of the biggest hurdles was when I started reading them more independently and comparing and contrasting the messages that the authors are trying to convey.
- The last major one was philosophical/theological issues that I have with the idea of sin/salvation presented in the gospels and Paul's letters

Coke Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

If a document copies another document, it 100% loses its status as an independent source - this is critiquing antiquity 101. But, the original document can still yes be reliable and considered an independent source.

I have heard the same explanation from Christian apologists multiple times on the genealogy differences, but it hasn't convinced me. I personally believe that the authors of the gospels crafted Jesus' lineage as part of the meaning behind the narrative. However, to keep things concise, let's focus on Matthew and Luke's genealogies since they intersect.

Upon closer inspection, both gospels trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph. There are a few differences here, but one of the most evident ones are when they go back to Zorobabel, son of Shealtiel. Matthew reports that Shealtiel's father was Jechonias, whereas Luke names Neri as his father.

I'm sure there are numerous and very creative ways apologists have worked around this. Does this derail the message of the gospels? Absolutely not - but a contradiction nonetheless.

---

As you know, Matthew was written for the Hebrew audience. I'm sure that read that he uses 3 sets of 14 generations for a reason. You also know that numbers were extremely important is to that culture. 7 is the perfect number and 14 is essentially double perfection.

Having said that, no serious NT scholar will state that there were exactly 14 generations of each set. There may be a reason that Shealtiel's Luke and Matthew choose different names for his father. The Hebrew culture was not conscripted to the literal uses of the word "father" . Neri or Jechonias could have been father, grand or great-grand father to Shealtiel.

Lastly, I've suggested this book to Texas Scientist here at least three times, but Trent Horn's Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties is a book that answers many of the skeptic's challenges to bible "contradictions."

---

Thank you for the response! I added the book to my wishlist, and will certainly pick it up when I have the chance. I actually follow Trent Horn on YouTube and enjoy his lectures/debates that he puts up.

Interesting idea on the literal use of the word "father" - I honestly have not even thought of that, as you're right, the word probably had a different meaning 2000 years ago in their language

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Fun fact:

Evolutionary game theory proves that the reality presented to us being fundamental is 0%. Species ran through revolutionary game theory who see realty as the absolute truth always die off.

What this means is the reality around is us presented to us so that we survive and it's WILDLY different from the actual underlying reality.

An easy way to understand this is imagine playing Grand theft Auto in VR and you're trying to drive a car. Realize that what you're doing in the game is controlled by a joystick, but in reality you're toggling millions of voltages in a computer. You don't want to know about the diodes and the resistors and all the electronics inside there nor all the magnetic fields and voltages plus all the software. You couldn't calculate that on your own.

We are given an interface. Much like a VR headset.

This whole notion that 3D spacetime is all there is and hardcore physicalism is fundamental is total BS. There's no operational meaning beyond Planck scale. Planck is a very shallow data structure as well.

We are most likely parts/agents of pure unbound consciousness at the fundamental level. That consciousness is God. I fully believe that. I also believe Jesus was fully conscious.

We can show axiomatically using mathematical metaphysics and logic that unbound syntax is enough for something like consciousness/perception to self create. There is no such thing as nothingness. If there was absolute nothingness (there isn't) you would still have potential, which is something.

---

Doc, I was able to watch the video you posted earlier in the thread and I forgot to respond. I thought Hoffman did an exceptional job at explaining reality all the way down to the quantum level and how this affects our perception of reality. The channel itself is a gem and I have subscribed.

A VR Headset really is an excellent way to put it. Your conclusion that this consciousness is God is a completely rational perspective. Interestingly enough, this is somewhat similar to what Hinduism believes.

---

Awesome! Glad you got to watch it, it's fascinating stuff.

I've always been intrigued with cosmogony, even as a kid. The Big Bang was never enough: I always asked "what caused that?", or "how/why did reality construct itself in this particular manner and not another?".

It's also the most complex subject on the planet lol, especially when you start diving into smashing atoms together and how they're using objects outside of spacetime to calculate probabilities.

Very similar to Hinduism, even Buddhism. Their take would be that a singular consciousness lives out every single human life (reincarnation).

---

I seriously say thank you for posting the theory and linked video - I have been reflecting on the idea and it definitely seems like a possibility in this strange universe we find ourselves in.

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I don't think any serious person doubt the historical Jesus.

---

Those looking for excuses do.

---

Just curious - have you ever actually looked into non-Christian sources on the historical Jesus? There are many reputable scholars and historians who doubt the historicity of a literal Yeshua in Judea.

I said above that I personally find his existence more probable than not.

---

Yes. I'm blanking but there are four(?) Roman sources - Tacitus and Suetonius are two I believe, but I may be wrong. Literally no scholary person doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

Here are 10:

• Richard Carrier - a historian and author who has written extensively about the historical Jesus and argues that he may be a mythological figure.
• Robert M. Price - a theologian and biblical scholar who has argued that Jesus may be a mythological figure based on earlier religious myths.
• Earl Doherty - a writer and researcher who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on pagan and Jewish religious ideas.
• Thomas L. Thompson - a biblical scholar who has questioned the historical accuracy of the Old Testament and has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character.
• G.A. Wells - a historian and author who has argued that the Jesus of the New Testament may be a mythological figure.
• Frank Zindler - a linguist and author who has argued that Jesus is a mythological figure based on earlier religious ideas.
• Bruno Bauer - a 19th-century German philosopher and historian who argued that the figure of Jesus was a myth created by early Christi.
• Alvar Ellegard - a historian and author who argued that Jesus may have been a mythological figure created by the early Christian community.
• John M. Allegro - a scholar of ancient languages who argued that the figure of Jesus was a mythological representation of a psychedelic mushroom cult (lol - I think we can agree this guy is wrong)
• Hector Avalos - a biblical scholar who has argued that the historical Jesus may be a fictional character created by the early Christian community.

I can't speak to their credentials, nor do I agree with them, I just wanted to point out that there are indeed scholars/historians who doubt his existence.

---

so enough about what we think, enough about what scholars think; What do YOU think about Jesus?

---

I believe that the stories we find in Mark are closer to the real Jesus, and that he certainly did not walk around preaching that he is God like we see in John.

---

Just so I am clear, you are talking about the same Book of Mark whose first verse describes Jesus as the Son of God / Ben-Elohim?

Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

---

Correct - Mark, the gospel where Jesus does not claim to be God.

Did I say the author of Mark didn't see Jesus as divine? Nope

---

No, your favored text, which you said is, in your opinion, closer to the "real Jesus" describes Jesus as the Son
of God. Your source disagrees with your conclusion.

---

My brother in Christ, what are you talking about lol? The author's personal view of Jesus has nothing to do with this.

The stories of Jesus in Mark, especially his sayings, is what I am referring to. I think they are the "closest" to the real Jesus - but are absolutely not historically reliable.

---

In you view, who is the oldest historical person where there is "historically reliable" writings?

Where do you place the bar that needs to be exceeded for something to be historically reliable?

---

It is extremely difficult to identify a single individual from antiquity who has the most reliable historical writings, as historical records from this period are often incomplete and may contain biases or inaccuracies.

To place the bar, it's important to establish criterion when researching and studying historical texts. These are some of the most commonly used criteria:

• Internal consistency
• External consistency
• Multiple attestation
• Proximity to the events described
• Corroboration

How does the text describing someone hold up to these criteria? To answer your first question - I don't know, I'd need to research that topic, as probably the oldest person that I have extensively studied is Julius Caesar, so let's go with him.

---

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared/?amp

---

This has to be sarcasm, right? Do you genuinely believe that the sources for Caesor and Jesus are even remotely comparable?

Caesor:
Caesar was a prolific writer, and he produced a number of works during his lifetime, including speeches, letters, and historical and political treatises. Some of his most famous works are his Commentaries on the Gallic War, which document his military campaigns in Gaul.

Some of Caesar's speeches and letters have also survived. These include letters to Cicero and other prominent Romans, as well as speeches delivered to the Roman Senate and to his troops during his military campaigns.

Jesus:
The exact authors of the gospels are completely unknown. Instead of eye witnesses, we have educated, Greek authors writing about a man through stories passed down orally over 3-6 decades after his death.

---

How many writings from Cesar?

---

Do you want me to count the number of surviving books/letters/speeches of Ceasar?

---

Trying to find the baseline for your trust, your "reliable", your faith.

You know nothing of the person coming up behind you at the intersection, but you have some degree of faith they want rear-end you. The driver of the oncoming truck you have faith they'll stay on their side of the line. You don't know the airline pilot but you have faith. You don't know the cook but you have faith. You don't know the EMT but you have faith.

It seems to me, faith is a choice. It seems to me, you have chosen something other than faith in Christ.

Ask yourself "what have I chosen"

Choose wisely

---

Rational decision-making involves a process of gathering and evaluating evidence, analyzing options, and making informed choices based on the available information. In contrast, faith often involves accepting beliefs or ideas without questioning or critically examining them, and relying on intuition, emotion, or personal experience as a basis for decision-making.

I do not have faith in the pilot, as I have overwhelming empirical evidence of the safety of flights. I can cross verify the thousands of flying hours the pilot has. I can verify their certifications, the safety sign offs for the aircraft, etc.

Can I 100% without a fraction of a doubt conclude that I will arrive safely to my destination? No - but the probability is so high that I am personally comfortable taking the extremely small risk of a disaster.

---

Born and raised a Baptist boy. Had 10 years of perfect Sunday School attendance. Yes, didn't miss a single Sunday for 10 years. We rarely traveled, but we found a church when we did. Started at Baylor as a voice major with some notion of calling to the ministry. Spent a couple of summers in college days as a Music & Youth Director. By the end of my freshman year it became obvious to me I didn't have the keyboard skills needed and would likely never have them. I could sing well enough to be invited to join the A Capella Choir as a freshman, fwiw (only about 10% were freshmen at that time). Stayed in A Capella even after switching to business as a sophomore after coming to grips with my lack of piano ability. Was blessed to hear Francis Schaeffer speak at chapel and spent some time later that day listening to him speak with a small group of students after chapel. He was very gracious with his time. This encounter started me down the road of wider reading and thinking as I moved into early adulthood and began to question that which was largely unexamined growing up.

Forward about 16-17 years and I lost my beloved mother-in-law who was one of the most saintly people I've ever known to early dementia and multiple strokes . It was a an agonizing process and I became very angry; angry with the world, angry at God. Serious doubt was a constant for many years.

Time moves on and the pain diminished. The doubt… not so much. Not sure why, but this triggered many years of extensive reading and studying of apologetics and theology. I guess I was searching for a reason to believe. Ultimately, thanks to our kids attending Episcopal schools, and my continuing love of serious choral music (can't stand contemporary Christian music - not sorry, lol) I started down the Canterbury trail and fell in love with historical Anglicanism, and particularly what many would call a "high church" form complete with smells and bells - more Catholic than most Roman Catholics (at least in esthetics). By extension, this led me to read the works of many wonderful Anglicans and Roman Catholics. I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church 25 years ago now.

My faith seemed restored for a season, and the music was great. Over 10-15 years, I led a couple of Alpha courses, facilitated a men's Bible Study, facilitated several small groups, participated in a couple of different choral groups, and presided as a Lay Reader for Evening Prayer. Nevertheless, life events over the past 10-12 years and the continued slide leftward of the Episcopal Church have led me back to the doubt end of the spectrum these days. That said, I intend to partake in Communion and the Imposition of Ashes later today. I've come to understand that no amount of reasoning or study will ever be "enough". For me, the best I can manage is hope. We must all choose how we will live. I will continue to live in hope while embracing the reality of doubt. I believe this is faith. Blessings to you on your way.

---

Thank you so much for the detailed response. It certainly sounds like you've been on a bit of a roller coaster, but I'm happy you have found happiness and comfort in your faith along this journey.

Herron2 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I've been exploring different religious and philosophical ideas lately, and I would love to hear your thoughts on what convinces you that God exists. As someone who hasn't yet been convinced by arguments for the existence of God, I'm hoping to learn more about what draws others to belief in a higher power.

I don't necessarily doubt the possibility of such a being, but I also don't know how one could be proven or dis-proven definitively. That's why I'd like to hear from some of you who do believe in God - what is it about your experience or understanding of the world that makes you believe there is a God?

Of course, I'm open to hearing from people who don't believe in God as well. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

---

And so, now, you've heard, and mostly rejected, thoughts on why various participants think or believe God exists. Let's end this thread.

Go on your search and when you find something you firmly believe in, then feel free to report back with your conclusions and evidence in support of such. Until then, you are, at this point, essentially trolling, whether intentional or not.

There's no reason for anyone to further address your questions. You have stated nothing about yourself that suggests that you are entitled to absolute proof of God's existence or anything else for that matter. Get over yourself and your disappointment in God. If you find a better way or faith, feel free to report back. But for now, you are simply wasting everyone's time.

And for those who are in Christ that would question the "harshness" of this post, recall that Jesus instructed his disciples as He sent them out that they could shake off the dust of their sandals as a testimony against villages that would not receive their teaching. Likewise, Jesus said it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment.

For those who are in Christ, do not entertain or respond to this person anymore. It is a waste of time, and, at best, he seems mostly intent on tearing others' faith down without any better substitute. If he finds what he thinks is truth, then let him present and defend it. Otherwise, you will continue to get denial and disbelief with no definition of truth. Further discourse with Baylorjacket on this thread is folly. Do not engage in it, again, if you are in Christ as he presents no better way.

---

I'm sorry you feel this way - I genuinely have enjoyed everyone's stories and posts about their diverse reasonings for belief in God.

Doc's scientific approach especially resonated with me, and has given me a unique perspective of God that I have not considered before, but for the first time in awhile feels possible.

I'm not trolling, nor do I believe I have rejected anyone's presented reasonings (beyond some Historical Jesus stuff which I clearly noted was off topic).

If I have torn anyone's faith down, I apologize, as that was not my intention.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

---

There is no contradiction that I can point to and say "this is it, this unravels everything!" - it is the collective contradictions along with (I don't think you'll disagree with this), objective proof that some of the gospels written later used other gospels and even copied many things word for word losing its status as an independent source.

For contradictions though, let's start with a simple one: the genealogy of Jesus.

---

First of all, a source that copies previous sources is how history gets passed down, so I don't see why this is a problem, especially if it is copied word for word as you say, and as long as the primary source is authentic and reliable. And I don't think it "loses its status as an independent source" so as long it gives new information and perspective outside of the parts it copied.

Regarding the "apparent" contradiction of the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, it can be resolved by attributing one geneaology to Joseph and the other to Mary. Or, it's possible that Joseph had a biological father (by seed) and a legal father (inheritance laws in Deuteronomy). This is explained in a youtube video called (different geneaologies? bible contradiction #1). Having both geneaologies would prove that either way, biologically or legally, Jesus' line follows to both Abraham (son of God by faith) and Adam (son of God by creation).

---

If a document copies another document, it 100% loses its status as an independent source - this is critiquing antiquity 101. But, the original document can still yes be reliable and considered an independent source.

I have heard the same explanation from Christian apologists multiple times on the genealogy differences, but it hasn't convinced me. I personally believe that the authors of the gospels crafted Jesus' lineage as part of the meaning behind the narrative. However, to keep things concise, let's focus on Matthew and Luke's genealogies since they intersect.

Upon closer inspection, both gospels trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph. There are a few differences here, but one of the most evident ones are when they go back to Zorobabel, son of Shealtiel. Matthew reports that Shealtiel's father was Jechonias, whereas Luke names Neri as his father.

I'm sure there are numerous and very creative ways apologists have worked around this. Does this derail the message of the gospels? Absolutely not - but a contradiction nonetheless.

---

Like I said, if a source copies another source for only PART of its text, then it can still be an independent source for the other parts. This is logic and reason 101.

Regarding the geneaologies - by "creative ways to work around this" do you mean perfectly reasonable and possible ways it might have happened, but it doesn't fit my narrative? The difference between Jechonias and Neri may be due to biological vs. legal also. Because neither of us can prove it true or false, but must rather speculate, this "contradiction" doesn't necessarily damage the historical reliability of the gospels.

---

At this point, I believe we just need to agree to disagree on the topic. When dealing with late antiquity texts, it surmounts to mostly speculation and difficult to concretely prove positions.

Regardless though, to perhaps have a slightly better idea of my mindset, I recommend checking out this debate of Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price:
(warning - it is a bit long, so no hard feelings if you pass)

Since you are clearly up to speed on the arguments and texts, I bet you'll really enjoy the conversation. It'll give you a good idea of my last two brain cells debating Jesus' historical existence lol. The logical and rational side finds Bart's points much more convincing, but the tinfoil hat side sees some credence in Robert's.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

---

There is no contradiction that I can point to and say "this is it, this unravels everything!" - it is the collective contradictions along with (I don't think you'll disagree with this), objective proof that some of the gospels written later used other gospels and even copied many things word for word losing its status as an independent source.

For contradictions though, let's start with a simple one: the genealogy of Jesus.

---

First of all, a source that copies previous sources is how history gets passed down, so I don't see why this is a problem, especially if it is copied word for word as you say, and as long as the primary source is authentic and reliable. And I don't think it "loses its status as an independent source" so as long it gives new information and perspective outside of the parts it copied.

Regarding the "apparent" contradiction of the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, it can be resolved by attributing one geneaology to Joseph and the other to Mary. Or, it's possible that Joseph had a biological father (by seed) and a legal father (inheritance laws in Deuteronomy). This is explained in a youtube video called (different geneaologies? bible contradiction #1). Having both geneaologies would prove that either way, biologically or legally, Jesus' line follows to both Abraham (son of God by faith) and Adam (son of God by creation).

---

If a document copies another document, it 100% loses its status as an independent source - this is critiquing antiquity 101. But, the original document can still yes be reliable and considered an independent source.

I have heard the same explanation from Christian apologists multiple times on the genealogy differences, but it hasn't convinced me. I personally believe that the authors of the gospels crafted Jesus' lineage as part of the meaning behind the narrative. However, to keep things concise, let's focus on Matthew and Luke's genealogies since they intersect.

Upon closer inspection, both gospels trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph. There are a few differences here, but one of the most evident ones are when they go back to Zorobabel, son of Shealtiel. Matthew reports that Shealtiel's father was Jechonias, whereas Luke names Neri as his father.

I'm sure there are numerous and very creative ways apologists have worked around this. Does this derail the message of the gospels? Absolutely not - but a contradiction nonetheless.

---

Like I said, if a source copies another source for only PART of its text, then it can still be an independent source for the other parts. This is logic and reason 101.

Regarding the geneaologies - by "creative ways to work around this" do you mean perfectly reasonable and possible ways it might have happened, but it doesn't fit my narrative? The difference between Jechonias and Neri may be due to biological vs. legal also. Because neither of us can prove it true or false, but must rather speculate, this "contradiction" doesn't necessarily damage the historical reliability of the gospels.

---

At this point, I believe we just need to agree to disagree on the topic. When dealing with late antiquity texts, it surmounts to mostly speculation and difficult to concretely prove positions.

Regardless though, to perhaps have a slightly better idea of my mindset, I recommend checking out this debate of Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price:
(warning - it is a bit long, so no hard feelings if you pass)

Since you are clearly up to speed on the arguments and texts, I bet you'll really enjoy the conversation. It'll give you a good idea of my last two brain cells debating Jesus' historical existence lol. The logical and rational side finds Bart's points much more convincing, but the tinfoil hat side sees some credence in Robert's.

---

Agreeing to disagree might end a conversation, but it doesn't mean that your thinking is not still in error. I don't know how much you respect Bart Ehrman, but even he, an opponent of Christianity, has stated that if you believe Jesus is a myth rather than an actual historical figure, you look "foolish". As Ehrman stated, Jesus is THE most attested first century Palestinian jew, with maybe the exception of Josephus. There is no more speculation involved in the historicity of Jesus than any figure during that time period, or for perhaps any figure in ancient history for that matter. If your standard is "concrete proof" of someone's existence, we can deny the existence of anyone in history. That just isn't a rational stance. The evidence we have for Jesus is just about as concrete as it can get for a person during his time period.

So- given that the textual, historical, and logical approaches point to the definitive existence of the historical Jesus, and that we've revealed that one of the arguments swaying you to the myth side - the reliability of Paul - is tremendously weak, where do you stand now on Jesus as history vs myth? Have you moved closer to the historical side? If not, what evidence or reasoning remains that still pull you toward myth? Could you tell me what argument from Price you found to have credence?

Probably not accurate to say I have found comfort or happiness at this point. Rather, I am resolved to live as if what I hope for is true. The story of Jacob wrestling with an angel (or God or a Christophany) is deeply resonant for me. Suspect I shall wrestle until my last breath. And that's OK.

BaylorJacket, how long do you stand in front of the open refrigerator before making a choice or, not make any choice at all? If you're not hungry, shut the door and move on.

Do you hunger?

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

My beautifully imperfect wife married me, and we produced two beautiful children. So there's that.

ATL Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oh, I forgot one more thing: I know I said I wanted to just focus on Paul for now, but I did want to just touch on your point about contradictions in the gospels damaging their reliability - first of all, contradictions do not necessarily disqualify texts as being historical. In fact, it may even authenticate them even more, given that if the same events were described by different human perspectives, one would expect differences and even minor contradictions to exist. In actuality, one should be very suspicious if NO contradictions or differences were to exist. Because that would suggest external manipulation. The Quran is a good example.

Given that, I do understand that if MAJOR contradictions exist, then it would be problematic. Which contradiction do you think is the most important, the most damaging to its reliability and historicity? Can you name just one that we can discuss, for the sake of brevity?

---

There is no contradiction that I can point to and say "this is it, this unravels everything!" - it is the collective contradictions along with (I don't think you'll disagree with this), objective proof that some of the gospels written later used other gospels and even copied many things word for word losing its status as an independent source.

For contradictions though, let's start with a simple one: the genealogy of Jesus.

---

First of all, a source that copies previous sources is how history gets passed down, so I don't see why this is a problem, especially if it is copied word for word as you say, and as long as the primary source is authentic and reliable. And I don't think it "loses its status as an independent source" so as long it gives new information and perspective outside of the parts it copied.

Regarding the "apparent" contradiction of the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, it can be resolved by attributing one geneaology to Joseph and the other to Mary. Or, it's possible that Joseph had a biological father (by seed) and a legal father (inheritance laws in Deuteronomy). This is explained in a youtube video called (different geneaologies? bible contradiction #1). Having both geneaologies would prove that either way, biologically or legally, Jesus' line follows to both Abraham (son of God by faith) and Adam (son of God by creation).

---

If a document copies another document, it 100% loses its status as an independent source - this is critiquing antiquity 101. But, the original document can still yes be reliable and considered an independent source.

I have heard the same explanation from Christian apologists multiple times on the genealogy differences, but it hasn't convinced me. I personally believe that the authors of the gospels crafted Jesus' lineage as part of the meaning behind the narrative. However, to keep things concise, let's focus on Matthew and Luke's genealogies since they intersect.

Upon closer inspection, both gospels trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph. There are a few differences here, but one of the most evident ones are when they go back to Zorobabel, son of Shealtiel. Matthew reports that Shealtiel's father was Jechonias, whereas Luke names Neri as his father.

I'm sure there are numerous and very creative ways apologists have worked around this. Does this derail the message of the gospels? Absolutely not - but a contradiction nonetheless.

---

Like I said, if a source copies another source for only PART of its text, then it can still be an independent source for the other parts. This is logic and reason 101.

Regarding the geneaologies - by "creative ways to work around this" do you mean perfectly reasonable and possible ways it might have happened, but it doesn't fit my narrative? The difference between Jechonias and Neri may be due to biological vs. legal also. Because neither of us can prove it true or false, but must rather speculate, this "contradiction" doesn't necessarily damage the historical reliability of the gospels.

---

At this point, I believe we just need to agree to disagree on the topic. When dealing with late antiquity texts, it surmounts to mostly speculation and difficult to concretely prove positions.

Regardless though, to perhaps have a slightly better idea of my mindset, I recommend checking out this debate of Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price:
(warning - it is a bit long, so no hard feelings if you pass)

Since you are clearly up to speed on the arguments and texts, I bet you'll really enjoy the conversation. It'll give you a good idea of my last two brain cells debating Jesus' historical existence lol. The logical and rational side finds Bart's points much more convincing, but the tinfoil hat side sees some credence in Robert's.

---

Two Atheist/Agnostics debating the existence of Jesus. Next time I evaluate meat in my diet I'll look for a debate between a vegan and a vegetarian on the subject.

---

What does someone's religious/spiritual views have to do with researching history? The debate has nothing to do with Jesus' divinity.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket, how long do you stand in front of the open refrigerator before making a choice or, not make any choice at all? If you're not hungry, shut the door and move on.

Do you hunger?

---

Am I interested in continuing to learn more about God and religion in different cultures and throughout history? Absolutely. Keep the door open.

Do I hunger any more though for a personal relationship with a God? (Assuming that's what you're asking). No

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you seriously

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

....
And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you seriously

---

I'm far more advanced than just an "entry level" understanding, trust me. I'm in a closely related field to biology and genetics. You have no idea what you're talking about. What's more, you don't even seem to understand that it has more to do with common sense, and logic rather than deep biological or genetics knowledge. In our past debate, you seemed only to have the biology and genetics knowledge at the popular science level, the kind they spew in atheist websites. And you ran away from the last discussion. I'll be more than glad to continue that discussion, if you wish. Exactly what is "flat earth" about it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

You mistake my indifference for being uncomfortable continuing the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun topic to think about as both sides bring good arguments to the table, but at the end of the day Jesus' existence to me is like the prophet Mohammed's or the Buddha's for you. I am significantly more interested in the history and culture of the times that caused these religions to rise and how people today interpret the passed down literature.

I understand you feel extremely confident that Jesus' existence is concrete, but I disagree with you, along with many scholars. Yes, I think there is a decent chance that THE Bart Ehrman is wrong on this topic. You can insult my intelligence or methodology of thinking, but you are the one who is unable to rationally and unbiasedly approach this topic as a Christian (which I 100% understand). If you really want to dive deep into the topic, start a new thread and I'll follow up there.

And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you serious

---

If "both sides bring good arguments to the table", then WHAT is an argument from the myth side that sways you? Let's evaluate that. Give an example.

"I disagree with you, along with many scholars" - ok, which scholar? Which has an argument you found convincing? Btw, Bart Ehrman said that NO scholar that is relevant questions the existence of Jesus. So I'm very curious as to the scholar you cite and what their credentials are, and what their argument is.

---

I believe that one of the most compelling arguments suggesting that Jesus may be a legend is the absence of contemporary accounts about him, both within and beyond the Bible. During the first century, Judea was a crucial province of strategic significance to the Romans, and it was extensively documented by numerous Jewish and Roman writers. We possess a large collection of their works, which contain detailed accounts of various ordinary events and the actions of other more mundane figures in Roman Palestine, including several unsuccessful Jewish messiahs. If the Gospels were accurate, or at least partially based on actual events, they would have provided far more exciting and noteworthy material to capture the attention of historians and writers of that time.

Only a single writer included in the apologists' list can be considered a near contemporary of Jesus, although he was born after Jesus' supposed death, and his account was written some sixty years later. This writer is the Jewish historian Yoseph bar Mattatyahu, who is better known as Flavius Josephus. In the year 93 or 94, Josephus composed his Antiquities of the Jews, which includes two passages that are controversial and are frequently used as historical evidence for Jesus. One of these passages is the Testimonium Flavianum, a brief excerpt that interrupts an otherwise bleak chapter and provides an optimistic summary of Jesus' miraculous career. It reads as follows:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. " (Ant., book 18, chapter 3)

The passage in question is a clear forgery, and modern historians do not dispute that it was added by later Christian writers. The only point of contention is how much of it is fake. Despite this, some apologists continue to argue that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus, and that the account was later embellished by overzealous scribes. These apologists even go so far as to try and reconstruct the "original" Testimonium. However, there are several reasons to believe that the entire passage is an interpolation, including the use of non-Josephean vocabulary and terminology. Additionally, it does not fit in with the rest of the chapter, which speaks of a different "sad calamity" altogether. This "sad calamity" is mentioned in the following paragraph, and it is not related to the Testimonium in any way.

The most significant indication that this passage is a forgery is that it does not appear until the 4th century, despite Josephus' works being widely read and studied by scholars for over 300 years. There is no evidence that anyone had ever read or referred to the Testimonium until that time. Michael Hardwick, a Josephus scholar, claims that more than a dozen early Christian writers, including Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, and Lactantius, had read and commented on Josephus' works, but none of them ever mentioned the Testimonium.

As for scholars, Dr Price is an accredited example, although there are other well known scholars like Dr. Richard Carrier with this viewpoint. Dr. Carrier has a BA and PhD in Ancient History from Cal Berkeley and Columbia University.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There's something in that video I want to point out - it doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus or the existence of God, but it really demonstrates something I've been trying to get at:

In the video, Ehrman says that he believes that Jesus being buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimithea is NOT historic. He believes the early Christians made it up, so that they could claim there was an empty tomb. His "evidence" for that belief are other Latin and Greek texts that referenced crucifixions which said that the Romans left the bodies on the cross to rot or to be eaten by wild animals. His belief is, therefore, that Jesus would have been left on the cross, and could never have been in a tomb to begin with.

But do you see the problem with his logic here? Could there never have been any exceptions? There were none that were ever buried? Family members never begged or bribed the Roman soldiers for the body? Could Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man with influence, have paid or persuaded the authorities to have Jesus' body for a proper burial? In fact, John 19:38 suggests just that, when it states that Joseph had to obtain specific permission from Pontius Pilate to take Jesus' body. So, how is Ehrman not able to incorporate that into his thinking?

Ehrman automatically defaults to the belief that the story of Jesus' burial is fake, simply on the grounds that other texts say that generally doesn't happen with crucified bodies. But that just isn't a sufficient basis for that belief. That'd be like saying a story about someone who was caught speeding but was let off without a ticket is a fake story, because you read all these other accounts where people were speeding, and they all got a ticket, and you read police manuals which said that if they catch someone speeding, to ticket them. No intellectually honest and rational person would buy this argument.

Bart Ehrman is an intelligent guy, so I'm sure that he KNOWS this. So why does he promote a belief that is so logically untenable, that even a second grade logic student can defeat it? My personal opinion is that he does it because he knows there's a market for doubting Christianity, with perhaps millions out there seeking validation in their skepticism who will gladly buy his books and swallow his arguments wholesale. Excuses for not believing in Jesus is in great demand, so dispensing them can be very lucrative.

But regardless, here's the point: HOW you come to believe something, is just as, if not more, important that what you believe. Because if one's thinking process is marred with poor logic, bias, and an underlying agenda, you're NEVER going to fairly, rationally, and honestly deal with arguments, no matter what they are, whether it's for the existence of God, or the historicity of Jesus, or anything else. Waco1947 is the epitome of that. That's why I've been really trying to understand your thinking process behind the historicity of Jesus, because I think it can be revealing - are we dealing with an honest skeptic, or not? Right now, I can't say that we are, given what we've discussed before about evolution and intelligent design, and here, what you've argued so far about Jesus' historicity, as well as your unwillingness to go into it further. Am I wrong?

---

....
And please drop the macro evolution denying rhetoric. This is almost Flat earth territory and no one with at least an entry level understanding of biology and genetics will take you seriously

---

I'm far more advanced than just an "entry level" understanding, trust me. I'm in a closely related field to biology and genetics. You have no idea what you're talking about. What's more, you don't even seem to understand that it has more to do with common sense, and logic rather than deep biological or genetics knowledge. In our past debate, you seemed only to have the biology and genetics knowledge at the popular science level, the kind they spew in atheist websites. And you ran away from the last discussion. I'll be more than glad to continue that discussion, if you wish. Exactly what is "flat earth" about it?

---

I appreciate your confidence in your understanding of biology and genetics, and I would be happy to continue discussing these topics with you. However, I must stress that scientific understanding is built on evidence and rigorous study, rather than common sense or intuition alone. While these qualities can be valuable in scientific inquiry, they must be tempered by the systematic collection and analysis of data.

"I am a follower of Christ who believes in a higher being that created the universe."-Baylorjacket 4/19/22

"I genuinely could not care less if Jesus literally existed or not."-Baylorjacket 2/24/23

The best argument against evolution is musical harmony. There's no reason we should have the phenomenological experience of harmony that we do.

Why is 530nm light 𝘳𝘦𝘥?

Because in our ancestral environment there was a lot of blood.

Why is a minor third 𝘴𝘢𝘥?

~Magic~

— Cody Zervas (Modern Meaning) (@Modern_Meaning) February 26, 2023

I've spoken with evolutionary biologists about this and read all the papers. Never have I ever heard a good explanation.

Some say it's just a subset of our general appreciation of patterns and order.

That explains why we like certain chord progressions more than other, etc.

— Cody Zervas (Modern Meaning) (@Modern_Meaning) February 26, 2023