Land Mark article by Washington Post
Given that the universe has a finite age, why did the universe begin with time rather than in time?Kevin K
This is actually an interesting physics question. Asking a theist to answer it is beyond their "magisteria", as Stephen Jay Gould would say.
Religious belief is not warranted at all; it is a 'pre-existing condition' ("a priori religious"), almost always instilled through indoctrination at a young age. Your "warranting" is just post-hoc reasoning to prop up an unsubstantiated belief.
"Atheists do not use the same ideas. String theory, multiverse etc. are accepted as interesting theoretical frameworks for explaining certain aspects of reality that science cannot explain yet."
Scientist (atheist or not) do not "believe" these frameworks; they are very busy to derive testable and falsifiable hypotheses from these frameworks in order to be able to either falsify them or elevate them to the status of scientific theory. I.e. directly the opposite of what theists do with their beliefs (including you; you just declare it true but
You are now going very deep into the rabbit hole of irrational apologetics;
so far that I am starting to question your honesty.
of course I do you moron
Do you really want to dispute the fact that religion is primarily propagated through childhood indoctrination?
I have always been a staunch Bible skeptic but not a Christ-mythicist. I maintained that Jesus probably existed but had fantastic stories foisted upon the memory of his earthly yet iconoclastic life.After exhaustive research for my first book, I began to perceive both the light and darkness from history. I discovered that many prominent Christian fathers believed with all pious sincerity that their savior never came to Earth or that if he did, he was a Star-Trekian character who beamed down pre-haloed and full-grown, sans transvaginal egress. And I discovered other startling bombshells.
Such is not the case. In Philostratus’s third-century chronicle Vita Apollonii, there is no hint of Jesus. Nor does Jesus appear in the works of other Apollonius epistolarians and scriveners: Emperor Titus, Cassius Dio, Maximus, Moeragenes, Lucian, Soterichus Oasites, Euphrates, Marcus Aurelius, or Damis of Hierapolis. It seems that none of these first- to third-century writers ever heard of Jesus, his miracles and alleged worldwide fame be damned.
The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:Josephus, Philo-Judaeus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria.(Ibid)
As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known.
Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3]Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.).
On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers.To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.esus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!
As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).We know from the Hiller article (op cot) that He did not live in Jerusalem and he only went there once, (EN7)(There is a reason why he;s called"of Alexandria.). He may have heard of Jesus was since he clearly craved the company of Roman elites he may have found Jesus embarrassing, There's no way they can prove Jesus was in Jerusalem during times of High Jesus viability such as the triumphal entry. It is their burden of proof barbecue they seek to eliminate the established fact of history. So the argument from silence about Philo is of no consequence, Now he says Philo had contact with the Royal House of Judea, That is Herod that means he murdered Jesus' cousin and tried to murder Jesus as an infant. Thus discussion of the Nazerath boys would probably be a black card topic at table with Herod, Especially True since Maier says the pattern for Herod was fear of opposite murder of opponent followed by more depression and more fear more murder,,(op cit EN8). Might not be a real good idea to remind him of killing the and John Jesus' cousin. I can just hear the Judea brothers discussion dinner at Herod's "Now bother don't make the homicidal dictator mad." Might be a good reason to leave that scruphy preacher guy Jesus out of the next book.
Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the timethat "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18). (Ibid)