Advertisements

Author: Bryan Daniels

I am a follower of Jesus, a husband to Jessica, and a father of three boys: Josiah, Gideon and Judah. I teach high school math as a job, read reformed theology as a hobby, and write this blog just for kicks. With the rest of my time I coach football and track.

30 thoughts on “”

  1. The cosmological argument is useful in demonstrating the necessity of deity in creation, but I am not the biggest fan of it because it does nothing to prove the Christian God. I look at it through a presuppositional lens as a logical counterpart to the transcendental argument.

    1. Well, there is no Christian God. So either way, you’re hamstrung.
      And if you can demonstrate otherwise then I and millions of others will be all ears.

  2. The question that is usually NOT raised in such articles and later, discussions, is where did we get our notion of God from?
    And the god we are reffering to, the one that all monotheists acknowledge is Yahweh. And his first (announced/manifested )appearance was to Moses.
    So surely the question, “Did Moses exist?”,must be asked.
    Based on the evidence -biblical and archaeological – the answer is an emphatic and resounding, NO.
    So this makes any further discussion on this ‘God’ somewhat moot.
    Better we ask, Was the Universe etc created? (maybe I should use a capital ‘C’ 🙂 )
    Ah, now we’re ‘talking’. Now we can get to the nitty-gritty.
    And, of course, the answer is, Who knows?
    So then, is the Big Bang Theory a fact?
    Um…well, who knows?
    No one was there to witness God or The Big Bang

    This is not the same as the evolutionary question; another can of worms,

    But as for attributing the universe etc to Yahweh…well, no. I don’t think so. Not really. And certainly not based on the ‘evidence’ as provided in the bible, which is often so spurious in its nature one would have to be more than a little ‘out there’ to take this literary hotch potch at face value.

    And theists can espouse from their ‘pulpits’ ’til the cows come home. They cannot provide anything to back their claim of a biblical God being responsible. And this is the bottom line.
    At the very least, science can, and does, provide evidence that can be tested.
    The bible can too, of course, but fails miserably if tested.

    1. I think you’re right (as is Josh above) that this does not overtly prove Yahweh, rather it gives a solid argument for Creator. I think the author seeks to prove the Christian God in other articles. Mr. Hanna would love to interact with your thoughts about such things, Ark.

      1. It doesn’t even give a ‘watery’ argument for a creator. Please don’t assume this is what I was inferring.
        I reiterate. Neither side can claim they have a ‘handle’ on this, but the scientists are the more honest. And,please, I know you are grinning, but let’s not go down the Intelligent Design path, I beg you..

      1. Would you care to list these “factual errors” ?
        I would be very interested.
        Oh, should I ‘troll’ on your blog then?
        You attack me and yet you believe in the veracity of a character called Satan. LOL
        So, how about it. Which factual errors do you take issue with?
        I’m all ears….

      2. Oh, and having perused your blog i would have thought that would you welcome ANY sort of visit. After all, with all those rather long winded posts you’d think you’d get more than 2 comments since the time you decided to ‘educate’ us sinners.

      3. I just had to post this for you and others to read.
        From your blog I believe.

        THE SWORDSMAN’S CANON OF INTEGRITY

        4. Humility. Know your weaknesses and do not portray your actions as more than they are (or draw attention to them). Do not view yourself as superior to anyone else, but rather as a servant. Learn to take criticism, learn to be taught, and learn to resist insults and blows without retaliating. Point always to God; take pride in Christ’s truth instead.

        Now relook at your initial comment to moi!.

        “You’re an idiot. You make several factual errors in your post and do nothing but make grand sweeping assertions.
        Go troll somewhere else.”

        Absolutely hilarious, and I am still laughing.
        As I often assert, there are none so hypocritical as the Christians and the worst of these is so often the fanatical reborns.
        Good one Joshua. I love it.! 🙂

      4. Instead of entering into any more tit for tat with someone who sounds as though he has not been taking his medication lately I will lay it out for you as simply as I can.
        Jesus of Nazareth: There was no town/village of Nazareth that existed at the time of Jesus’.
        Ergo. No Nazareth, no Jesus of Nazareth.
        Read Baggati, if you want a Christian perspective first, (he was the first to conduct archaelogical investigation) or go straight to
        Rene Salm. If you are able to refute this (without resorting to polemic or naughty words) then you will be quite the scholar.
        You sound like a clever feller, so I don’t think I have to provide links, do I?
        Now, off you go, and do some homework. Come back when you are enlightened, with less vitriol and a bit more common sense.

    2. Factual error #1: You said the God all monotheists refer to is Yahweh. This is incorrect. Although Islam and others claim to believe in the same God, they do not refer to him as Yahweh nor does Allah act anything like the Yahweh in the Bible.There are several fundamental beliefs about God’s nature and workings that differ from each religion which drastically any philosophical arguments for their existence and impact in the world.

      Factual error #2: You said God’s first manifested appearance was to Moses, but the Genesis is clear that God walked with Adam in the Garden of Eden.

      Factual Error #3: You said in reference to preachers, “They cannot provide anything to back their claim of a biblical God being responsible.” This is absurd and you just read an article making an attempt to do this. The cosmological argument is a logically cogent argument whether you like it or not, and it IS part of something they can use to back up their claims. You are being disingenuous and just trying to steam-roll your way out of getting caught smuggling in your unjustified assumptions. Your post is nothing but smoke and flash-bangs. You sound like you’ve got heavy guns and are doing major damage, hoping the gullible evangellyfish will have a heart attack and go belly up for you, but really behind it all there’s a noise machine and no real imminent danger.

      You said, “You attack me and yet you believe in the veracity of a character called Satan.”

      I fail to see the correlation. Oh, I get it. You’re totally fine with ad hominems that aren’t explicit, right? It’s only the ones that are real noticeable (and come from theists, of course!) that you don’t like. Tell me, does this implicit ad hominem ring a bell: “And certainly not based on the ‘evidence’ as provided in the bible, which is often so spurious in its nature one would have to be more than a little ‘out there’ to take this literary hotch potch at face value.”

      Tell me, oh rational man, oh guru of reason, oh saintly atheist of infallible logic, you compendium of inerrant information you, what reaction did you expect from your ignorant vitriol? Or are you so dull as to think that the above comment of yours was actually not an ad hominem? Who then attacked whom first? And where is your justification of this, hm? Of course there is none — it is mere assertion in this post anyway — for, if you did provide one example, it would be answered by Christians who actually read their Bibles. Or are we so low in your eyes, so insane, so valueless as human beings in your supreme and super atheist eyes that we are not even allowed the privileged of defending our own views against your awesome and profound assault on them? That incredibly offensive and intolerant of you, sir.

      And while we’re all making false accusations at each other: “After all, with all those rather long winded posts you’d think you’d get more than 2 comments since the time you decided to ‘educate’ us sinners.”

      After all, with all those rather long winded posts of yours on Bryan’s blog, you’d think you’d have been refuted since the time you decided to “educate” us religious folk.

      hmm…I can’t say for sure, because I don’t know, but either you have astoundingly unimpressive English reading skills, or else you need a very strong pair of spectacles, because I don’t know where the heck you are getting this sarcastic nonsense from. Although I do plan on doing apologetic work on my blog, thus far I have only written theological works aimed at building up and challenging my own brothers and sisters in Christ. My blog head very clearly (and always and in BIG LETTERS) says as my mission, “A free resource equipping the saints according to…” So as to make my purpose unmistakable.

      Also, I do accept many kinds of comments on my blog. I do not, however, accept deliberately offensive, obscene, or un-constructive persons on my blog. If you’re just going to make tons of assertions and call Christians crazy through veiled ad hominems, never making an attempt at rational, mature discussion, then you are most definitely a troll and need to be blocked. That way you can take your miserable and pointless comments and harass somebody else.

      1. 1.
        Just because the name is different does not mean the god monotheists worship is a different entity. It is not, and trying to suggest that Allah does not act anyting like Yahweh is just plain silly. Even a cursory read of the Koran and the Old Testament will reveal that Allah/Yahweh, are violent and self centred.
        The god in the garden is not the same as Yahweh. A religiously knowledgable person like you should know this surely? You are obviously aware that during the time of the Patriarchs El was merely one god of a pantheon, yes?
        3,
        I stand by what I said re: evidence of a biblical god being responsible for creation. Your reply is disingenious my friend as you are using nothing but twisted logic and sophistry to bolster an irrational arguement – re there is creation ergo there must be a creator. Nonsense. Or, to put it bluntly, Baffle them with Bull****.
        Succinct enough?
        4.
        You are an angry young man and you need help.
        Whatever your emotional trauma was I sympathise, but your approach is irrational and smacks of reborn fundamentalism. A rather silly approach to religion that even ordinary Christians shy away from.
        Next,you will be cheering the exploits of the late Ron Wyatt and co.
        Silly person. Go and lie down for a while.

      2. Your idiotic historical claims have been refuted by biblical and secular scholars alike, including Bart Ehrman who you so blithely blow off. Why do you call him up and debate him you moron.

        You’ve obviously drunk the koolaid of radicalism. No scholar in his right mind could deny the historical Jesus lest the entire historical method be a farce.

      3. Instead of entering into any more tit for tat with someone who sounds as though he has not been taking his medication lately I will lay it out for you as simply as I can.
        Jesus of Nazareth: There was no town/village of Nazareth that existed at the time of Jesus’.
        Ergo. No Nazareth, no Jesus of Nazareth.
        Read Baggati, if you want a Christian perspective first, (he was the first to conduct archaelogical investigation) or go straight to
        Rene Salm. If you are able to refute this (without resorting to polemic or naughty words) then you will be quite the scholar.
        You sound like a clever feller, so I don’t think I have to provide links, do I?
        Now, off you go, and do some homework. Come back when you are enlightened, with less vitriol and a bit more common sense.

      4. I am on medication? Oh okay (Say, why do you insinuate that I am wrong in hurling the occasional ad hominem at you, and yet turn around and do it yourself). Yet it is you who said, “No Nazareth, no Jesus of Nazareth.” This is blatantly ridiculous non-sequitur. This is why I am already tired of posting back to you, because you can’t even reason properly.

        Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth afterward. It does not follow that, if one place was made up or embellished, that the person who was said to have lived there necessarily did not exist. If you were to put that into a syllogism it would not follow. Also, I do not reject the gospels and Acts as witnesses to a Nazareth.

        Also, recent excavations have uncovered an ancient house in Nazareth dating to the time of Jesus. They believe it was an extremely small settlement of only a couple hand full of houses that was far out of the way. In other words: insignificant and nobody cared. That’s why it’s not mentioned in other documents.

        Also, some of the pottery found in the area dates before the first century, indicating that the settlement was not just a post-Jesus development, but had been there quite a while. Objectively speaking, you can’t say either way if it existed when Jesus was supposedly growing up there or not, but given the evidence I am comfortable believing it was — since, you know, I’m a Christian, and, there is pottery there dating before first century. Here is one article: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/Residential_building_time_Jesus_Nazareth_21-Dec-2009.htm

        Moreover, the leader of the excavation in this article refers to historical sources about Nazareth. So, either you aren’t listing sources, are entirely unaware of them, or this secular Israeli historical organization is referring to the Scriptures as valid historical documents on the matter. Of course you’ll deny that, but hey, you aren’t an archaeologist are you? And if you are, will you please go down and debate them on this topic and get it on tape? I’m not an archaeologist so I’d like to weigh the back and forth you have with someone who is, since I can only speak and reason based on what is reported.

      5. Oddly enough, the link you have provided no longer exists.
        It has been removed from the IAA official site. If one clicks on the link:
        http://www.antiquities.org.il/modules_eng.asp?Module_id=54, there is no record or mention of this house at all on their site(as of today’s date)
        Well not that I could find, and I have just spent the past half hour trawling it.
        There are still several other places that feature the claims of Alexandre , eg,
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/6857889/House-dating-back-to-time-of-Jesus-is-discovered-in-Nazareth.html

        Understand, I am not doubting the link you provided once existed, but may I ask where you found it, please?

        To date, no official archealogical report on the find has ever been released, and the claimed finds have never been offered up for independant verification.

      6. http://www.uhl.ac/NazarethVillage/nazareth.html

        The CSEC, under the direction of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, conducted an excavation and survey of the Nazareth area, where they found pottery from the 2nd century BC. This means that Nazareth was probably around during that time and after. That article you mentioned only mentions the Roman bathhouses and artifacts in passing, shrugging them off, attempting to disconnect the artifacts and the house, etc. but it never justifies why it does this and only attempts to throw more mud on the situation in an attempt to make it look less certain. The article mentioned Rene Salm, but his book was published before the house in Nazareth surfaced. Rene is also an anti-theist with an agenda to disprove anything and everything Christian, and will lie to get his way. Bart Ehrman is equally anti-theist, yet he still holds the view Jesus existed and refutes the claims of mythicists. I am not convinced of what is in that article. (On another note: Bart Ehrman contacted the leader of the house excavation in Nazareth and she confirmed his questions about it. You misspoke severely when you said Nazareth probably never existed — you should have said it was “possible” it never existed. But in your arrogance I suppose you couldn’t help it. You also seem very confused about this. Just because that article made some points about why it thought the evidence was lacking, does not mean it was entirely refuted or that there was no evidence for Nazareth — or Jesus — at all. Ergo, the dogmatic claim that Nazareth is a myth is completely unjustified and serves only as a radical conspiracy theorist’s attempts at dehumanizing and offending Christians.)

        Furthermore, there was a 1st century list written in Aramaic which lists a priest who came from Nazareth. This had to have been before 70 AD when the temple was destroyed, because after that, there was no need for priests. Also, it is impossible that Nazareth was fabricated before the 3rd century, because Christians were intensely persecuted. It’s not possible that they made an entire village based out of the New Testament texts about Jesus and didn’t get it burnt to the ground and everyone inside stoned, or targeted by Roman forces as a site of revolution against the government (which is what they thought the Christian Jews were initially). All Jews, not just Christian Jews, were itching to fight back the Roman occupation.

        But even if there was a huge lack of historical evidence for Nazareth, it does not disprove its or Jesus’ existence. It may be that evidence surfaces in the future, or that Nazareth turns up in the record at another part of Galilee. For a long, long time the king Sargon of Assyria was considered a myth perpetuated in Isaiah 20:1, yet now we know he did, in fact, exist. The same goes for Pontius Pilot. In fact, liberals and atheists alike attacked his existence in the same way you and your cohorts are attacking Nazareth — and then historical evidence came along for Pontius Pilot. Skeptics then had to bite their tongues and edit their views.

        There are countless other examples of this is both OT the Bible and the NT book of Acts where skeptics scoffed and accused the documents of fabrication and then were only again proved wrong when more historical data surfaced.

        In reply to your comment on my blog about me throwing the first stone:

        I can’t believe how selective you are. In my second reply to you I distinctly pointed out that it was your post here that was the first stone thrown: “And certainly not based on the ‘evidence’ as provided in the bible, which is often so spurious in its nature one would have to be more than a little ‘out there’ to take this literary hotch potch at face value.”

        Check the post date. It was far before my reply. It was you who first attacked all the Christians of this blog and the blog being quoted here. So don’t even go there. Do you honestly think — I mean for pete’s freaking sake, HONESTLY — think, that your inflammatory comments are completely innocent and would never spark anyone to call you out? A fellow atheist even told you to knock it off. Honestly? I mean, seriously, HONESTLY? Are you really that blind and really lack that much self-consciousness of what you do?

      7. Correction. The link you provided is not on the IAA page, thus could not have been removed from it.
        I meant to say I couldn’t find the link on their page either.

      8. “The CSEC, under the direction of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, conducted an excavation and survey of the Nazareth area, where they found pottery from the 2nd century BC.
        This means that Nazareth was probably around during that time and after. That article you mentioned only mentions the Roman bathhouses and artifacts in passing, shrugging them off, attempting to disconnect the artifacts and the house, etc. but it never justifies why it does this and only attempts to throw more mud on the situation in an attempt to make it look less certain. The article mentioned Rene Salm, but his book was published before the house in Nazareth surfaced. ”

        If you read the whole of the passage I linked for you would have seen Salm’s explanation re: the excavation and the house. http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalsix The link again.

        “Rene is also an anti-theist with an agenda to disprove anything and everything Christian, and will lie to get his way.”

        You offer no evidence or proof to illustrate that he is a liar, so your assertion is merely a defamatory opinion.

        “Bart Ehrman is equally anti-theist, yet he still holds the view Jesus existed and refutes the claims of mythicists. I am not convinced of what is in that article. (On another note: Bart Ehrman contacted the leader of the house excavation in Nazareth and she confirmed his questions about it. You misspoke severely when you said Nazareth probably never existed ”

        My denial has always been in relation to the time Jesus supposedly existed. I acknowledge it existed after. However, the onus was on me to make myself as clear as possible.
        This excerpt from Rene Salm will make the position even clearer.
        ‘There is, however, a statement in the Catholic literature which, I submit, should be taken seriously: “Up till then [that is, the recent ‘house’ discovery], there was no scientific evidence affirming the existence of a village of Nazareth of the epoch of Christ.” After a hundred years of digging, this belated admission is entirely correct…” ‘

        “Furthermore, there was a 1st century list written in Aramaic which lists a priest who came from Nazareth. This had to have been before 70 AD when the temple was destroyed, because after that, there was no need for priests. Also, it is impossible that Nazareth was fabricated before the 3rd century, because Christians were intensely persecuted. It’s not possible that they made an entire village based out of the New Testament texts about Jesus and didn’t get it burnt to the ground and everyone inside stoned, or targeted by Roman forces as a site of revolution against the government (which is what they thought the Christian Jews were initially). All Jews, not just Christian Jews, were itching to fight back the Roman occupation.”

        The Priest from Nazareth. You have provided nothing to back this up so it is difficult to respond.
        Is the Priestly list you refer to the three fragments found at Caesarea?
        If not, please provide the reference. Thanks.

        “But even if there was a huge lack of historical evidence for Nazareth, it does not disprove its or Jesus’ existence. It may be that evidence surfaces in the future, or that Nazareth turns up in the record at another part of Galilee. For a long, long time the king Sargon of Assyria was considered a myth perpetuated in Isaiah 20:1, yet now we know he did, in fact, exist. The same goes for Pontius Pilot. In fact, liberals and atheists alike attacked his existence in the same way you and your cohorts are attacking Nazareth — and then historical evidence came along for Pontius Pilot. Skeptics then had to bite their tongues and edit their views.”

        Many of the characters in the bible were real people. And I have never said Pilate did not exist. The stone found in 1962 was an important archaeological discovery.
        There are countless other examples of this is both OT the Bible and the NT book of Acts where skeptics scoffed and accused the documents of fabrication and then were only again proved wrong when more historical data surfaced.”

        This is not relevant to the topic at hand and you haven’t provided examples so there’s no point responding.

        “In reply to your comment on my blog about me throwing the first stone…”

        This I can discuss on your blog if you like?

        1. I just found out Josh had a serious medical emergency a few hours ago (I’m connected with his brother through FB). I’d ask we suspend this particular discussion until further notice. Thanks.

      9. If it has not been open to independent verification then this discussion is over with until something definitive is released. I’m not going to go round and round with you over speculation and incredulous conspiracy theories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s