Monday, August 27, 2012

CMW: How Would the Gospels Look Different if They Were True?

On Jason Rennie's podcast "Christian Meets World", he spent the past 5 weeks airing interviews with some scholars on what they think about the validity of the Gospels. He interviewed three Christians and asked them why they think the Gospels are true and interviews two unbelievers and asked them how would the Gospels look different if they were true.

Episode 1: Dr Ben Witherington
Episode 2: John Loftus
Episode 3: JP Holding
Episode 4: Robert Price
Episode 5: Dr Gary Habermas

How would the Gospels Look Different if? 50-54

16 comments:

  1. For the record, traveling backwards through time is, as far as we know, a non-naturalistic explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just because we don't know how to travel through time does not mean that there is not a non-naturalistic way to do so. I think Jason was equating "non-naturalistic" with "non-supernatuaral" not "normative". People used to think that human flight could only be done non-natural however the same natural laws that keep bird, bats,some species of squirrels, some fish, and some insects in the air are same laws and physics that govern human flight machines.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Jason was equating "non-naturalistic" with "non-supernatuaral" not "normative"

    Understood, and traveling backwards through time is for all intents and purposes "supernatural". We know how to travel forward through time, it's simply that we are lacking the technology to go that fast (never mind the technology needed to ensure the traveler is not turned to jelly), it's simply an engineering problem. But traveling backwards through time is theoretically impossible given the current understanding of physics, i.e. "supernatural".

    Also, you can't (or shouldn't) punt to "what we used to think" to speculate about what we don't actually know.

    ...some species of squirrels...

    No squirrels I know travel backwards through time, not even Sandy.

    I'm not saying it's impossible, just that we have no reason to think it's possible. There's a subtle difference there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No squirrels I know travel backwards through time, not even Sandy.

    No one was saying that they do.

    I'm not saying it's impossible, just that we have no reason to think it's possible. There's a subtle difference there.

    A lot of people didn't think that human flight was possible either. Just because we don't know how to safely travel backwards in time doesn't mean that there is no Physics that won't allow that. We don't know either way. I would not classify that as Supernatural. The way "supernatural" was used in the show was defined as meaning "coming from God".

    ReplyDelete
  5. No one was saying that [squirrels time travel].

    [...]

    A lot of people didn't think that human flight was possible either.


    The point being, we knew flight in general was possible.

    But given our current understanding, traveling back in time would require intervention from god, making it supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
  6. But given our current understanding, traveling back in time would require intervention from god, making it supernatural.

    I believe that God could allow time travel if God had the desire. But that does not mean that you can rule out time-travel as requiring divine action. We don't know enough to come to that conclusion. We are not even really sure what "time" is to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like I said, I’m not saying traveling backwards in time is impossible, just that our current understanding of physics and the universe gives us no reason to think that it is possible.

    But think about this, by the standard you are putting forth here, one cannot rule out ANYTHING as requiring divine intervention (miracle) and we're back to Hume. I think that might put you in a bad position if you honestly follow the implications.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Like I said, I’m not saying traveling backwards in time is impossible, just that our current understanding of physics and the universe gives us no reason to think that it is possible.

    So we agree that we don't really know if Time travel is possible or not. I'm not arguing against the possibility or necessity of miracles. I'm saying that you don't know if the only way to travel through time backwards is miraculously. we know that flight is not miraculous. We don't know if time travel must also be miraculous given that we don't know how to do it. We are no where close back to Hume. I thought you listened to the interview with Dr Gary Habermas. You still think Hume was right? I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not arguing against the possibility or necessity of miracles.

    I understand that. You are arguing that backwards time travel may not require a miracle (despite any evidence). If backwards time travel does not require a miracle, then, given our understanding of physics, nothing would.

    I'm not arguing that Hume was right or not, just that your refusal to acknowledge the necessity of a miracle for backwards time travel brings his view on miracles back into play.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I understand that. You are arguing that backwards time travel may not require a miracle (despite any evidence). If backwards time travel does not require a miracle, then, given our understanding of physics, nothing would.

    What you seem to not understand that no one knows if it requires a miracle or not to go backwards through time. You have no evidence either way. It is your opinion that only a miracle would explain backwards travel through time. I'm not convinced of that. Provide evidence showing that it's impossible to travel through time without a miracle.

    I'm not arguing that Hume was right or not, just that your refusal to acknowledge the necessity of a miracle for backwards time travel brings his view on miracles back into play.

    The only way you can prove that is by showing that backwards time travel can only be done by a miracle. I'm arguing that we don't know that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sean Carrol deals with this in chapter 6 of his book, From Eternity to Here and comes to the conclusion that closed timelike loops are likely impossible. Stephen Hawking's also comes to the same conclusion in his books and online interviews.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I asked you for evidence not appeals to authority. How do you know that they are not wrong?I'm not arguing that I know one way or the other that time travel is impossible outside of a miracle(s). You are.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is not an expert in the field in question.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I didn't say you committed a fallacy, only failed to show that time travel is only miraculously achieved. You managed to show that two experts don't think it's possible. Big whoop. You don't know if they are correct. You have faith that they are correct.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Given that neither you or I are experts, I am completely fine with that.

    Question; how would I demonstrate backwards time travel is impossible without appealing to experts?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Question; how would I demonstrate backwards time travel is impossible without appealing to experts?

    A degree in physics might be helpful. But you already said that you agreed that you could not say that it was impossible. I'm still saying that we don't know enough about time and space to rule out time travel or claim it is impossible. I'm not ruling out the miraculous when I say that it may not need a miracle. God can do whatever and whenever but that does not mean that people can't do certain things through technology and science. Time travel may be one of these things at some point. You don't know it can never be nor can can you say it is inevitable.

    ReplyDelete