Reason is the basis for knowledge

Reason is the basis for knowledge and therefore the way to determine what is true.

For example, under empiricism [the philosophical view that knowledge comes from sensory experience and observation] they will use reason to formulate a hypothesis, construct an experiment, and evaluate the result. So, an empiricist will, in fact must, appeal to logic/reason to obtain knowledge. And this is true for any other schools of thought – everyone will appeal to reason to defend their view as well as criticize/evaluate other views

Reason or Critical thinking is the act or practice of careful goal-directed thinking (i.e applying reason and questioning assumptions) to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc. The 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. We use Critical thinking for analyzing and/or evaluating information gathered from various sources as a guide to convictions and action in everyday life and in all fields of inquiry. 

A Christian may say that revelation is knowledge, but they must still reason from the Scriptures, as in Acts 17:2,17

Note: if one uses reason to criticize my claim, that's actually validating it - you are using reason to gain knowledge as to the validity of my claim.

Objection 1: Rationalism begs the question - the rationalist will use a rational argument as a premise for the conclusion of his argument.

Reply: To this, I say no, it is testing a hypothesis. Test all epistemic theories, see that all use reason.

Objection 2: I can use reason to gain knowledge about the Lord of the Rings. I can gain knowledge about a fictional universe, but that doesn't make it magically true for our reality

Reply: If one is gaining knowledge about the LOTR, then they should be able to gain the information that it's fictional.

Objection 3: One must use evidence along with reason to conclude they’ve learned something about reality and not about something in their (or someone else’s) imagination. Otherwise, there is no way to differentiate between knowledge about reality and knowledge about fictional universes.

Reply: First, notice that you did not use evidence in this, so you seem to have refuted your own point. Secondly, you cite "reality"; what is it, and how do you know?

Objection 4: Your appeal to “reasoning” as absolute authority is circular. You assert that “reasoning” is the ultimate authority because that is the only reasonable means for ascertaining truth.

Reply: Circular reasoning is when the proposition is supported by the premises, which are supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.

But my argument stems from the fact I investigated other schools of thought until it dawned on me that everyone uses logic or reasoning to make their case, including empiricists, skeptics, intuitionists, etc.

Note: These pushbacks come from previous conversations about this topic.

To sum up,

1) reason alone can be used alone to gain knowledge 

 

2) every other method must employ reason to gain knowledge, otherwise their preferred epistemological model doesn't work

 
3) All criticisms of my view will invariably use reason to validate their analysis.

Other posts you may be interested in:

Skepticism is Not Critical Thinking

The Inference to the Best Explanation

Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting

Definition: 

Determinism, a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.

Examples: 

1) Truth cannot be known (If so, then how does one know this truth claim?)

2) Language cannot carry meaning  (If language cannot carry meaning, then what about this claim? Is it meaningful?)

3) Science is the only way to determine truth, or I only trust things I can determine through a scientific process  (Can science determine if that statement [about science] is true or what scientific experiment provided that conclusion for you?)

The problem:

Justification [the action of showing something to be right or reasonable] requires some kind of "cognitive freedom" - you need to have control over your deliberations, over what you do [or don't accept] on the basis of evidence, reason, However, determinism [the belief that all actions and events result from other actions [i.e not you - so people cannot in fact choose what to do] makes this freedom impossible. 

Therefore, the person who argues for determinism, or is tempted to accept it, is in a weird position: their conclusion apparently undermines the very reasoning process they're using to justify it.

The Argument:

Philosophical Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists, and that all things supernatural (including gods, spirits, souls and non-natural values) therefore do not exist. It is sometimes called Metaphysical Naturalism or Ontological Naturalism to distinguish it from Methodological Naturalism. Philosophical Naturalism entails physical determinism

**Methodological Naturalism is the assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method**. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural/physical causes for all events and phenomenon. From Rationalwiki - An online rationalist skeptical resource with is decidedly anti-religious, anti-theistic bent.

Michael Ruse an atheist and Philosopher of science in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism writes "It is usual to distinguish between "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" whereby the latter we need a complex denial of the supernatural - including atheism as understood in the context of this publication - and by the former a conscious decision to act in inquiry and understanding, especially scientific inquiry and understanding as if metaphysical naturalism were true. **The intention is not to assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, but to act as if it were**.  [p383]

That's methodological naturalism - assuming naturalism is true, or acting as if it were, in one's methodology.

Philosophical Naturalism holds that any mental properties that exist are causally derived from, and ontologically dependent on, systems of non-mental properties, powers or things (i.e. all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely constructed from or caused by natural phenomena). 

Philosophical Naturalism entails physical determinism - all events are physically determined, including human thoughts. 

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge, since all epistemological theories or methods must employ it.

2) Every truth claim requires the laws of logic. It is impossible to deny the laws of logic without using them. Thus, logic reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality. In fact, everyone is using logic in this discussion, so it seems evident that all believe that logic is an aspect of reality.

3) All debates presuppose a reality that exists. Each debater is trying to show that their claims are closer to that reality or are best explained by that reality.

4) Critical thinking's definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. [source] Critical thinking is purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed; an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

5) Under Philosophical Naturalism all actions, including human thoughts, words and deeds, are the result of matter which must act in accordance with antecedent physical conditions and the physical laws without exceptions.

6) 4 above is incoherent under Philosophical Naturalism; logic, reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality that cannot be explained via Philosophical Naturalism, since no one has dominion over their thoughts - i.e. no one makes any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws, as they must act only in accordance to the physical laws Note: Just saw this vid where William Lane Craig agrees with this point

7) The best explanation for the existence of logic is that there is an aspect of reality that is free from the constraints of the physical; i.e. not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. One's decisions are differentiated from natural events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.

J. P. Moreland in his book, “Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity" offers a perfect summary: “Physicalism cannot be offered as a rational theory because physicalism does away with the necessary preconditions for there to be such a thing as rationality.” If a naturalist wants to argue that rationality does not exist, they will be making two grave errors: 1- They would be claiming to be non-rational, and 2- they would be making a rational argument that rationality does not exist. It seems the rational decision one ought to come to is that naturalism is irrational, and therefore, false.

In Daniel O. Dhalstrom's Heidegger's concept of truth the author writes: There is, for example, a metaphysical sense of naturalism that Husserl deems self-refuting: the theoretical pretense that everything - including, preeminently, ideas and consciousness - is part of "nature", conceived as the ensemble of empirical facts governed by laws uncovered by natural science....The claim is self-refuting and a pretense because it cannot justify itself; 

Conclusion: Philosophical Naturalism is not simply less likely to be correct, it is logically self-refuting and is necessarily false since it cannot account for reason - careful, purposeful, intellectually disciplined, goal directed thinking as a guide to belief and action. Under PN every thought action is physically determined. Thus, the existence of logic is best explained in a reality where more than the physical exists - something that is not bound by physical restraints - which allows one the freedom of not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself.

As Haldane once said, “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

Either “reason” is merely an illusion of physics—in which case there is no justification for relying on it to produce truthful beliefs—or “reason” is something more than physical—in which case naturalism is false. If human reason is driven by mindless particle interactions, it does not necessarily correspond to truth. If we believe reason corresponds to truth, we cannot also believe reason is determined purely by physical means.

No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.

There is NO evidence for God!

I hear the "There is no evidence for God" line all the time from atheists and other critics, but I think that it's untrue; there IS evidence for God.

An analogy: The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the Steady State universe or a cyclical universe. It just means that the Big Bang Theory explains more of the data/evidence better than those other two. The same data/evidence is used by all three.

Similarly, Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not.

The data/evidence

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

2) Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent, thus 1) one cannot default to physical explanations; 2) we now have at least one reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable.

3) Our thoughts are not just brain activity, rather they are the result of an immaterial mind thus, we now have a second reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable

4) A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause solves the problem of an infinite regress of causes

5) the origin of DNA is more likely on design than chance.

6) The fine-tuning of the universe is more likely on design than chance or necessity - thus, given all the above, a transcendent metaphysically necessary God is the best explanation for life as we know it.

7) Jesus was a historical person, see also Bart Erhman, NT Scholar agnostic/atheist where he says ["no question Jesus existed"] since there are many, early, independent sources.

8) Jesus' resurrection was historical rather than a myth

Conclusion: Given 1–8 above, and the explanation offered for each, a critical thinker has good reasons to conclude that the Christian God is the best explanation for the world as we know it.

If atheists and other critics with "I don't know" or "I'm not convinced" then they are admitting that they do not have any explanations and tacitly conceding that the Christian has the better explanation.

If one has no better explanation(s), why reject the Christian's?

Objection A - This is a God of the gaps fallacy

Reply: I’m not citing a gap in our knowledge and saying "God did it". This is a series of arguments; first showing that reason is the basis for knowledge not science; second, that must be a non-physical aspect to reality; third that design is a better explanation for our existence and life; fourth that God is the best explanation for whom that designer is.

Objection B - The theory of the existence of a mind makes no predictions, thus there can be no evidence for it. 

Reply: It doesn't need to. You seem assuming that it must meet the criteria for a scientific theory, but this is a logical argument. See point 1 Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

Objection C - this is just a list of assertions based on your own ignorance, incredulity, and gullibility; that's not evidence for God. This is just "apologist goulash"  

Reply:  You are just sticking your head in the sand, refusing to engage in a discussion of the evidence/data/arguments. 

Objection D - You might want to post this on a Reddit sub where you debate atheists, not Christians. I'm sure the Christians here could offer some constructive feedback, though.

Reply:  In my experience: 1) there are enough atheists in Christian subs to get feedback/debate, 2) what I mostly get on when I used to post atheist Subreddits is derision and downvotes, no intelligent discussion. Look at the current comments on Reddit. Additionally, Christians can be edified, educated, and enriched with this.

Objection E - Your points/arguments are incredibly inaccurate

Reply: Which ones specifically and where exactly are the errors for each? 

Objection F - Is the universe really so perfect? It’s extreme and harsh. Completely inhospitable for life, with vast excesses of empty space. Is that the mark of design?

Reply: When scientists speak of fine-tuned universes, they are referring to universes that are life-permitting. By life-permitting, they do not mean that life can exist wherever, or whenever, or that it's a paradise, or that there is no suffering/death; they do not even guarantee that life will exist. It’s a much more modest claim. It only holds that the fine-tuning will permit the existence of life. That’s it.

Objection G - You misunderstand what constitutes evidence.

Reply: Evidence is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, archaeological finds, DNA, etc

DNA is evidence. The findings of neuroscience for an an immaterial mind is evidence. Fine-Tuned Constants is evidence. Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent is evidence

Objection H -  Where you see design, others see chaos.

Reply: What better explains the Fine-Tuned Constants of the universe? Design, or chaos? Why?

What better explains the multitude of DNA-based micromachines like the ATP Synthase? Design, or chaos? Why?

SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.

An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Objection I -  The problem with this is sooner or later we hit a brute fact. I say that the fact is there are natural laws that describe how reality functions.  You say, because a magic guy made it that way.  We can show the laws, testable, repeatable, and consistent.

Reply: First you cite "reality"; so what is reality and how do you know? 

It can't be Philosophical Naturalism since it's logically incoherent and Reason is the basis for all knowledge.  

And the "magic guy" is better understood as A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause 

A fine tuned universe

Within the context of a life-permitting universe, fine-tuning involves “the claim that the laws of nature, the fundamental parameters of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe are set just right for life to occur.” Robin Collins, The Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos: A Fresh Look at Its Implications,” in The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity,  207.

In other words, certain physical constants and quantities exist within an exceedingly narrow range that favors the appearance of life.

This does not mean, necessarily, that the universe was designed but, rather, as physicist Luke Barnes states: “In the set of fundamental parameters (constants and initial conditions) of nature… an extraordinarily small subset would have resulted in a universe able to support the complexity required by life.” But the implication is that it is more likley to have occured via design than by chance.

Reasonable Faith video

 

Examples of fine Tuning

Even the tiniest change to any constants or quantities will result in a universe incapable of supporting life. For example, if the gravitational fine structure constant (i.e., a measure of the strength of the interaction between charged particles and the electromagnetic force) was slightly smaller, existing matter would have expanded too far and rapidly to form stars and planets. Hence, no life could have formed. 

On the other hand, if the gravitational value was too large, the universe would have collapsed on itself, and the stars would have burned out too quickly to allow the existence of life. Moreover, if the electromagnetic force did not exist, there would be no complex chemistry. The chemicals essential for life would be too unstable to allow proper bonding, and there would be insufficient carbon and oxygen to support life.

Alternate views

While some believe that the many observed constants and quantities seem finely tuned for developing intelligent life, others have suggested that there is no way to scientifically test the effect of fine-tuning since there is no way to adjust the values to observe the consequences. As physicist Sabine Hossenfelder stated, a fine-tuned universe represents “an observational constraint on our parameters.” In other words, our knowledge of fine-tuning is interesting but is of limited scientific value since the parameters cannot be changed.

The Fine Tuned Argument [FTA] claims that, given the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of a life-permitting universe is very unexpected given naturalism — that “there is only one world, the natural world . . . [which] evolves according to unbroken patterns, the laws of nature” (Carroll, The Big Picture, 20)—but not particularly unexpected given theism—that God exists. It thus provides evidence for the existence of God. 

Faced with his own fine-tuning discoveries in physics and astronomy, Fred Hoyle commented that, “a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature” (Hoyle, p16).

Virtually no scientists dispute the science behind fine-tuning. What they dispute is what it all means. Three popular explanations for the existence of a fine-tuned universe are:

1) the multiverse explanation

2) fine-tuning is a brute fact of a universe brought about by chance (i.e., single-universe naturalism)

3) the design hypothesis 

The Multiverse

The multiverse explanation of fine-tuning proposes the existence of a vast, if not infinite, number of universes with different initial conditions or fundamental boundaries of physics and perhaps even different laws of nature. If there were an endless system of universes, we could expect that at least one universe would be structured to support intelligent “observers.” Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised to find human-like life forms or other embodied conscious agents somewhere in a multiverse. In this scenario, we were randomly selected to live in a universe that supports life.

Evaluation: One problem with the multiverse hypothesis is that NO scientific evidence supports it. None. If multiple universes exist, they are unobservable—without observation and testing, there is no way to generate scientific evidence to support a multiverse hypothesis. One cannot test a hypothesis when no data is forthcoming.

According to physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, any universes outside our own would be “causally disconnected from us.” and “The vast majority of multiverse ideas are presently untestable, and will remain so eternally.” Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, p 101-107

As a result, the multiverse explanation is not a scientific hypothesis; it is a philosophical (metaphysical) one. Philosophical questions such as this lie outside the purview of traditional scientific methods and must be justified in some other way.

Advocates of the multiverse often posit a "universe-generating" mechanism to explain the origin of other universes. By postulating a universe generator, proponents think that it may increase the probability of getting a life-friendly universe somewhere in the multiverse. However, the speculative cosmologies that are purportedly responsible for generating multiple universes (i.e., string theory, inflationary cosmology) invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning.  Thus, the multiverse hypothesis cannot explain fine-tuning without appealing to some prior fine-tuning mechanism (either the universe generator or whatever generated the generator).

For example, suppose one tries to explain the design of a car by referring to the assembly plant that produces many similar cars. Such a description doesn’t alleviate the need for an explanation for the design of the car. Indeed, it simply points to the need for an explanation of the design of the assembly line that produces the cars. In other words, it shifts the need for explanation to the next level. The shortcoming of this approach is that it leaves one in doubt about the source of all prior fine-tuning processes and mechanisms and still leaves open the question of why these should be random rather than designed.

Thus, even if a multiverse exists, theism may provide a better explanation than naturalism. An infinite set of universes is better explained by an unbounded cause than a random cause. Since there is no good reason to believe that the multiverse must be randomly caused, and since the universe generator must also be finely tuned, a simpler explanation [via Occam's Razor] seems more likely: If a multiverse exists at all, then a single transcendent intelligence designed it to support life.

Single-universe naturalism

Philosophical naturalism [PN] is a worldview that asserts that the existence of intelligent life in our universe is the result of chance processes governed by natural laws. There are no design influences, only blind material causes. However, naturalism is unproven scientifically and therefore requires a substantial defense to warrant belief. And PN is also self-refuting. 

Fine-tuning is a brute fact

Single-universe naturalists claim that there is nothing surprising about the fact that we find ourselves in a universe with rational beings because nothing else is possible. Only in a universe that supports life can there be beings capable of observing and reflecting upon fine-tuning. Single-universe naturalists see life in the universe as a brute, inexplicable fact that requires no further explanation. Nobody would be alive to comment on fine-tuning if the universe weren’t life-permitting in the first place. Thus, the existence of human observers is unremarkable.

If one assumes in advance that the fine-tuning found in the universe is the result of chance, then any arrangement of matter is equally improbable (or probable), and there is no reason for one to ask why or how we exist. Naturalists who see fine-tuning as a brute fact say we don’t need to search for a deeper explanation: The universe “just is.”

Evaluation: First, to say that fine-tuning “requires no further explanation” is a matter of opinion. Undoubtedly, many people seek deeper explanations than are readily available. And to say that human existence is “unremarkable” is, at best, arguable. 

Second, to justify one’s belief that a fine-tuned universe is merely a brute fact, one must know in advance that the universe is solely the result of chance. In other words, one must assume the truth of philosophical naturalism. However, mere assumptions are not self-justifying. To prove that naturalism is true, one must develop and present good reasons to justify such a belief.

Furthermore we have reasons to conclude that  PN is self-refuting. 

Nevertheless, the assumption of naturalism receives no help from science because naturalism is not a scientific position; it is a philosophical one. To merely assume the truth of naturalism amounts to nothing more than a “naturalism-in-the-gap” belief. Thus, single-universe naturalism is a belief that requires one to put forth evidence and arguments to demonstrate the rationality of naturalism and that it's the best explanation of the evidence

When scientists (or anyone else) assume the truth of philosophical naturalism, they naturally begin to reject anything and everything that does not fit their predetermined viewpoint.  Many people take the side of naturalism simply because of a prior commitment since it's the methods and institutions of science that compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world. They have an unspoken, a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce only material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive. But that is not rational. The cure for that, of course, is reason. 

The design hypothesis

For many theists, it is unsurprising that the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life. After all, if an intelligent being wanted to create a world where intelligent life exists, it seems reasonable that it would set the initial conditions and physical constants of the universe to favor that outcome. A finely tuned universe - one that supports intelligent, self-reflective, rational beings - is perfectly consistent with a theistic explanation. It is a coherent and simple explanation that need not appeal to unnecessary conjectures (e.g., the multiverse) to support its case.

Theists (specifically monotheists) have historically believed that God created the universe and populated it with all forms of life including intelligent life. This has inspired many theists, as well as non-theists, to seek answers to the “how” question through the study of biology, chemistry, and physics. To theists, fine-tuning leads one to look for an ultimate explanation for the universe and its many features. In a theistic world, the Designer could have used any number of methods to ensure the establishment of intelligent life, including a fine-tuned single universe or a multiverse.

Evaluation: Like the multiverse and chance hypotheses, theism cannot be proven scientifically. In other words, the theistic explanation is not a scientific position but a philosophical one. But that's okay since reason is the basis of all knowledge, not science. Nevertheless, many philosophical/theological arguments favor theism, while naturalism has few if any, positive arguments. Therefore, the success of theism depends on demonstrating why it explains fine-tuning better than the other two hypotheses.

Conclusion

Although each of the three explanations offered is consistent with a fine-tuned universe, none of them can explain fine-tuning with absolute certainty. But then we know almost nothing with aboslute certainty. 

Both the multiverse and chance hypotheses are doubtful. Neither is supported by scientific evidence, and both lack philosophical arguments to support their foundational beliefs.

Nevertheless, the design hypothesis is currently the best explanation of the data - it infers that the fine-tuned constants and quantities of the universe favor the influence of a designing intelligence. And **the design hypothesis indirectly supports theism**, as this designer must be beyond the confines of the physical. 

Objection A - The puddle analogy is an argument against FTA as it compares a puddle to life, and any hole to the environment and its pressures. It shows that organisms with specific adaptations are well-suited to any environment.

Reply: The puddle analogy is refuted here 

Objection B - Design is unscientific,

Repy: SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.

An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Objection C -This is a God of the gaps argument.

Reply: A God of the Gap argument assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon. But I’m not citing an unknown phenomenon or a gap in our knowledge. I am using the inference to the best explanation and citing what we do know about the universe, in order to choose between design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] over chance [a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal] or an the scientifically unknowable [the multiverse]

Objection D -You can't apply Zeno's paradox to causal chains.

Reply: Per the [IEP] "...many of Zeno’s arguments turn crucially on the notion that space and time are infinitely divisible, he was the first person to show that the concept of infinity is problematical."

Where did I say that "space and time are infinitely divisible"?  Difficult to evaluate your objection since it's so vague. 

Objection E -You can't speak of BEFORE the universe, when time as we know it is a product OF this universe.

Reply: 1) I guess that wipes out the possiblity for any multiverse theory

2) Perhaps I spoke of casually prior. 

Objection F -Saying that "God" is the TOE is literally meaningless. It provides no knowledge or insight into the universe, it's just wordplay. Pumpkin soup is the explanation for everything. See, we call all assert meaningless things.

Reply: LOL, showing that God exists provides NO knowledge or insight into the universe?  That's totally absurd the the nth degree. 

Objection G - how can a designer create the universe without time, space, or energy/material?

Reply: My post is limited to showing the the best explanation is that the universe was designed, not how that design was implemented. This question will have to be addressed in a future post.

That being said, scientific observations are consistent with the idea that the universe came into existence out of nothing rather than existing eternally or forming from pre-existing material. Modern astrophysics has confirmed by both mathematics and observation that the universe is continually expanding; that space itself is expanding. 

An expanding universe must have a starting point. An infinite regress of causes isn't logically viable. While there are a variety of models that, at best, delay the problem further into the past, none can escape the ultimate reality that even the very substance of the universe had a beginning. These facts also negate eternal, cyclical models of the universe found in many eastern religions in which the universe has always existed. The universe is finite. It began to exist, and there was no matter before it. And every model of the universe must contend with the fact that there must be a starting point for existence. 

Objection H - What if the constants and quantities had to be the way they are? If their values are somehow necessary, then fine-tuning isn’t a problem that needs to be resolved or explained.

I'll let Wiliam Lane Craig address this: 

It seems to be pretty widely acknowledged that the constants and quantities in question are not physically necessary. This is because they cannot be predicted on the basis of current physical theory or any extension of current physical theory. Several years ago Stephen Hawking addressed your question at a cosmology conference at the University of California, Davis. Notice the alternative answers which he identifies to the fundamental question he poses:

Does string theory, or M theory, predict the distinctive features of our universe, like a spatially flat four dimensional expanding universe with small fluctuations, and the standard model of particle physics? Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe, than the alternatives. These are that the initial state of the universe, is prescribed by an outside agency, code named God. Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle.

Notice that the options mentioned by Hawking are precisely the three alternatives which I address. Hawking argues that the first option, physical necessity, though the option most physicists would prefer to be true, is a vain hope: “M theory cannot predict the parameters of the standard model. Obviously, the values of the parameters we measure must be compatible with the development of life. . . .But within the anthropically allowed range, the parameters can have any values. So much for string theory predicting the fine structure constant.” He wrapped up by saying,

"...even when we understand the ultimate theory, it won’t tell us much about how the universe began. It cannot predict the dimensions of spacetime, the gauge group, or other parameters of the low energy effective theory. . . . It won’t determine how this energy is divided between conventional matter, and a cosmological constant, or quintessence. . . . So to come back to the question. . . Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not. It allows a vast landscape of possible universes, in which we occupy an anthropically permitted location.

In fact, this idea of a “cosmic landscape” predicted by string theory has become something of a phenom in its own right. It turns out that string theory allows around 10^500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that the theory does not at all render the observed values of the constants physically necessary.  [source]

Chattel Slavery is NOT Endorsed or Condoned in the Bible

So I listened to the lecture in the Youtube link from this Reddit thread by Joshua Bowen. Now I’m more convinced than ever that: “Chattel Slavey is not Endorsed or Condoned in the Bible” [thesis statement]

First, I was struck by the definition of slavery that was used: A condition in which An individual or rights to their labor is owned by another either temporarily or permanently; the owner controls and benefits from their actions and activities of the owned individual.

But this is overly broad - An employer today could be seen as “owning slaves” under this definition. Since when one clocks into work their employer “owns the rights to their labor” and “benefits from their actions or activities”, even though it's a temporary situation. And yes, one could say that the employee is benefiting as well [paycheck - healthcare] but so would an indentured servant in the OT [food, housing, paying off debt, taking from the flock, threshing floor, winepress upon leaving per DT 15:12-14

This definition allows him to equivocate and conflate two very different ideas. 1) a temporary, voluntary situation where one commits oneself to work to pay off a debt, and 2) permanent, involuntary labor for another. Perhaps this is because Bowen thinks that “Any type of slavery is atrocious” and that slavery is horrible in every circumstance - [quotes from the Q/A section about the 1:20 mark] But this seems to be an a-priori conclusion that drives his analysis. I say this because what is horrible and/or atrocious about indentured-servitude - i.e. paying off one’s debt?

Debt slavery wasn't very different from our concept of employment: working for someone else so you could pay off your debts. We call it employment; they called it bond-slavery or indebted-servanthood

Furthermore "Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom [Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996.4:1190]

A better definition of chattel slavery would seem to be a situation that includes one who is 1) involuntarily owned, 2) treated as property and 3) used as forced labor since this is in agreement with what most reference as chattel slivery - that of the antebellum South.

To further complicate things the same Hebrew word ebed is translated as servant, slave, worshippers (of God), servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc), servant (of Israel), servant (as form of address between equals. This is a major problem for those who contend that the Bible condones chattel slavery since that concept is not in the word ebed. Critics seemingly just presume that any time they see the word "slavery" it must = chattel slavery. But there is no reason from the text or context that this is true

I also want to touch on the word buy - The word transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract such as in modern sports terminology a player can be described as being bought or sold the players are not actually the property of the team that has them except in regards to the exclusive right to their employment as players of that team - [Stuart, Douglas K.. Exodus: (The New American Commentary) (KL:13449)

Secondly, Bowen sees himself as a “conduit of Biblical scholarship” and that “Everything I say is consensus biblical scholarship”, He wants “To be able to say to a non-specialist, ‘here is what they all say about this topic’” Conservative and liberal scholars “all agree on this topic“ [starting at the 1:14 mark]

Two problems. First, arguing by citing "consensus" isn’t scholarship, it’s an attempt to appeal to authority [he’s a scholar who insists that all scholars agree with him [so who would even think to disagree with that deck stacked against you?] - but scholarly consensus can be incorrect as the Geocentric model of the universe was the scholarly consensus until it was proven false.

Secondly, not all scholars agree with him - shocking as it sounds, it’s true.

Owing to the existence of numerous designations for the non-free and manumitted persons in the first millennium BC. throughout Mesopotamia in history some clarification have the different terms in their particular nuances is necessary the designations male slave and female slave though common in many periods of Mesopotamian history are rarely employed to mean chattel slave in the sixth Century BC in the neo-babylonian context they indicate social subordination in general [Kristin Kleber, Neither Slave nor Truly Free: The Status of Dependents of Babylonian Temple Households]

Westbrook states :At first sight the situation of a free person given and pledged to a creditor was identical to slavery The pledge lost his personal freedom and was required to serve the creditor who supported the pledges labor. Nevertheless the relationship between the pledge and the pledge holder remained one of contract not property. [Rachel Magdalene, Slavery between Judah and Babylon an Exilic Experience, cited in fn]

Mendelshon writes: The diversity of experiences and realities of enslaved people across time and place as well as the evidence that enslaved persons could and did exercise certain behaviors that would today be described as “freedoms”, resist inflexible legal or economic definitions. Economic treatises and legal codes presented slaves ways as chattel while documents pertaining to daily life contradict this image and offer more complex picture of slavery in the near East societies. Laura Culbertson, Slaves and households in the Near East

Some of the misunderstanding of the biblical laws on service/slavery arises from the unconscious analogy the modern Western Hemisphere slavery, which involved the stealing of people of a different race from their homelands, transporting them in chains to a new land, selling them to an owner who possess them for life, without obligation to any restriction and who could resell them to someone else. Weather one translates “ebed as” servant, slave, employee, or worker it is clear the biblical law allows for no such practices in Israel Stewart Douglas, id]

I’m not citing these scholars to disprove Bowen’s view per se but just to demonstrate that not all scholars agree with him.

So the question of chattel slavey and the Bible must be addressed not by fallacies but by data

These are the passages where Bowen attempts to make his case:

Exodus 21:2-6

Bowen contends that the male slave only has 2 options, remain a permanent slave or go free as a single man as the wife remains a permanent slave. But this is simply untrue,

1) He could negotiate a marriage payment for his wife/kids. (Slaves did have to pay betrothal fees:… they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. [History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Raymond Westbrook],

2) We know that a person could continue to work/provide services inside a household (as a post-servant) and earn the bride-price, like Jacob did for Rachel and Leah (7 years for each),

3) Some of the gifts the master was supposed to send him out with at his release could be used as marriage payment see Deut 15:12-14

Exodus 21:7-11 Bowen contends this condones sex slavery.

Since the Bible teaches monogamy, any sort of sex slavery is simply out of the question. Later in the video Bowen contends that the Bible is not a text that has “one voice”; it has many contradictory voices so the answer that this was a marriage arrangement is simply not considered even though in context it does speak of the woman’s “marital rights”. Vs 10

Exodus 21:20-21 - Bowen is upset by the beating of slave/servant but is seemingly unaware that this treatment was no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizens. Being punished by the legal system via rod-beating was common in the Bible Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). Perhaps you do not agree with corporal punishment, but that is a different discussion.

Proverbs 29:19-21 I’m not sure why Bowen brought this up. If you’ve ever encountered someone who is undisciplined, lacking self-control or good behaviour then you know how true this passage is.

Exodus 21:26-27

Bowen cites lex talionis - the law of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offense committed in kind and degree. His complaint is that the owner should have his eye/tooth knocked out, not for the slave/servant to go free. But wouldn’t the slave/servant rather go free then the former? And is this consequence in addition to lex talionis, and not a replacement?

Deuteronomy 15:12-18 Bowen seems to have concerns with slave/servant staying in this position

It is important to point out that When a Hebrew slave/servant goes free after their 6th year they do not go out empty handed - They are given liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. See verses 13-14. If the slave/servant desires to stay permanently he may; but why would any want to? Given the economic realities of the times being a servant may have been the better option then going it alone.

LK 17: 7-10 Bowen contends that this shows 1) the reality of slavery during Jesus’ time, 2) the appropriateness of drawing on that reality for the analogy, 3) the complete lack of condemnation of slavery.

But again, what is meant by slavery? Chattel slavery? No, Bowen has failed to make the case that "ebed" must mean chattel slavery. Indentured servanthood/employment? That fits the passage perfectly; indentured servanthood/employment was 1) a reality during Jesus’ time, and was thus 2) appropriate for the analogy. And Jesus would 3) have no reason to condemn servanthood/employment.

Lev 25: 44-46 - this is the “big one” as it supposedly 1) Allows chattel slaves from other nations/strangers, 2) who become property, 3) passed down to children, 4) for life

But let’s slow down a bit. Bowen has yet to [and in fact never does] say how/why he gets “chattel slave” from “ebed”. So the passage above can mean, and most likely does mean "servants". As Stuart notes above, "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract.

And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, but it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force. Given that this passage loses all of it bite

The verses that that critics ignore that will further show that Lev 25 cannot mean what they want it to - i.e. that foreigners were chattel slaves.

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.[Leviticus 19:33-34]

“You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt*. [Exodus 23:9]

*Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them *

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” [Exodus 21:16, see also 1 Tim 1:9-10]

This is clear that selling a person or buying someone against their will into slavery was punishable by death in the OT

“You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.” [Deuteronomy 23:15–16]

These four passages outlaw chattel slavery in the OT:

1) the Israelites were commanded to treat foreigners well; "shall not oppress", "you shall not do him wrong", "you shall love him as yourself".

2) You cannot steal a person, which means you cannot enslave a person against their will.

3) You cannot sell a person, which means people are not property.

4) If a person working for you wants to leave a slave/servant situation they can, and the Law protects their freedom to do so.

Bowen dismisses DT 23:15-16 by saying that this was referring to other tribes/countries and that Israel was to have no extradition treaty with them. But read it in context and that idea is nowhere to be found; DT 23 is just miscellaneous laws . Verses 1-8 is concerned with who is excluded from the assembly. Verse 9-14 it’s uncleanness in the camp. Verses 17-18 Cult prostitutes, 19-20 interest on loans, 21-23 vows to God, 24-25 conduct in your neighbor’s fields Verses 15-16 refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin. No matter what the cause of their servitude, nor the cause of their refuge, God still says that extradition is NOT to be done!

TL;DR

Chattel slavery means 1) involuntarily owned, 2) treated as property and 3) used as forced labor.

The Hebrew term ‘ebed [slave/servant] designates a range of social and economic roles. Thus no reason to conclude that a use of "ebed" must mean chattel slavery.

The word transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract.

Israelites had multiple ways out of slavery/servanthood

God definition of marriage precludes any sort of sex slavery.

Beatings were not a punishment reserved for slaves; it was a common punishment even for free persons.

The no kidnap, no buying or selling of people was punishable by death.

The Israelites were commanded not to oppress, but to love foreigners .

The non-return of run away slaves/servants applied to all.

Jesus Said More about Hell Than Anyone in the Bible

Descriptions Jesus used for hell

Jesus spoke of hell more than anyone else in the Bible. He referred to it as a place of “outer darkness” where “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12). In other words, all the joys that we associate with light will be withdrawn, and all the fears that we associate with darkness will be multiplied. And the result will be an intensity of misery that makes a person grind his teeth in order to bear it.

Jesus also refers to hell as a “fiery furnace” where law-breakers will be thrown at the end of the age when he returns. “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 13:41–42). He calls it “the hell of fire” (Matt. 5:22), “eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43), “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46).

This last description—“eternal punishment”—is especially heartrending and fearful because it is contrasted with “eternal life.” “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” In this contrast we hear the tragedy of loss as well as suffering and endlessness. Just as “eternal life” will be a never-ending experience of pleasure in God’s presence, so “eternal punishment” will be a neverending experience of misery under God’s wrath (John 3:36; 5:24).

Hell Is Not a Mere Natural Consequence of Bad Choices

The word wrath is important for understanding what Jesus meant by hell. Hell is not simply the natural consequence of rejecting God. Some people say this in order to reject the thought that God sends people there. They say that people send themselves there. That is true. People make choices that lead to hell. But it is not the whole truth. Jesus says these choices are really deserving of hell. “Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to [that is, guilty of, or deserving of] the hell of fire” (Matt. 5:22). That is why he calls hell “punishment” (Matt. 25:46). It is not a mere self-imposed natural consequence (like cigarette smoking leading to lung cancer); it is the penalty of God’s wrath (like a judge sentencing a criminal to hard labor).

The images Jesus uses of how people come to be in hell do not suggest natural consequence but the exercise of just wrath. For example, he pictures the servant of a master who has gone on a journey. The servant says, “My master is delayed,” and he “begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards.” Then Jesus says (referring to his own sudden second coming), “The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 24:48–51). This picture represents legitimate and holy rage followed by punishment. 

Jesus told another story to illustrate his departure from the earth and his return in judgment. He said, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. . . . But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us’” (Luke 19:12, 14). When the nobleman returned in his kingly power to reward those who had trusted and honored him with their lives, he punished those who rejected his kingship: “As for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me” (Luke 19:27). Again the picture is not one of hell as a disease resulting from bad habits but of a king expressing holy wrath against those who rebuff his gracious rule.

Fear Him Who Can Destroy Both Soul and Body in Hell

This is why Jesus said, “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). The fear he commands is not fear of hell as a natural consequence of bad habits, but of God as a holy judge who sentences guilty sinners to hell. This command to fear God as a holy judge seems discouraging at first. It seems as though following Jesus means leading a life of anxiety that God is angry with us and is ready to punish us at the slightest misstep. But that is not what Jesus calls us to experience as we follow him.

It seems amazing to us, perhaps, that immediately following his warning to “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell,” Jesus says something designed to give us deep peace and full confidence under God’s fatherly care. The very next sentence goes like this: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matt. 10:29–31).

In the same breath Jesus says to the unrepentant unbeliever, “Fear God who casts into hell” and to the repentant believer “Do not fear because God is your Father who values you more than the sparrows and knows your smallest need.” In fact, the all-providing care of God to the believer is one of Jesus’s sweetest and most pervasive teachings:

Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? . . . Therefore do not be anxious, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” or “What shall we wear?” For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. (Matt. 6:26, 31–32)

God Is to Be Feared, and God Is to Be Trusted

How does Jesus mean for us to experience these two truths about God—he is to be feared, and he is to be trusted? It won’t do to simply say that “fear of God” means “reverence for God” rather than “being afraid of him.” That does not fit with the words, “Fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!” (Luke 12:5). Of course, it is true that we should reverence God, that is, stand in awe of his holiness and power and wisdom. But there is also a real fear of him that can coexist with sweet peace and trust in him.

The key is that God himself is the one who removes his wrath from us. Our peace does not come from our removing the God of wrath from our thinking, but from His removing His wrath from us. He has done that by sending Jesus to die in our place so that, for everyone who believes in Jesus, God’s wrath is taken away. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,” Jesus said, “so must the Son of Man be lifted up , that whoever believes in him may have eternal life . . . . Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:14–15, 36). When Jesus cried out on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34), he was experiencing the wrath of God’s abandonment in our place—for he had never done anything to deserve being forsaken by God. And when he said finally from the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30), he meant that the price of our salvation—our deliverance from God’s wrath and into all God’s blessings—had been paid in full.

The reason we do not live in the discomfort of constant fear is because we believe.

Jesus had said that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28), and now the full ransom was paid, and the work of absorbing and removing the wrath of God was finished. Now, he says, everyone who believes has everlasting fellowship with God and is fully assured that the wrath of the Judge is gone. “He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life” (John 5:24).

Fearing Unbelief and it's Consequences 

What then is left to fear? The answer is unbelief. For those who follow Jesus, fearing God means fearing the terrible prospect of not trusting the one who paid such a price for our peace. In other words, one of the means that God uses to keep us peacefully trusting in Jesus is the fear of what God would do to us if we did not believe. The reason we do not live in the discomfort of constant fear is because we believe. That is, we rest in the all-sufficient work of Jesus and in our Father’s sovereign care. But at those moments when unbelief tempts us, a holy fear rises and warns us what a foolish thing it would be to distrust the one who loved us and gave his Son to die for our anxiety-free joy.

Closeness to God Takes Away Fear

If we will trust Him and enjoy Him and throw our arms around his strong neck, he will be everything we ever hoped for in a friend. But if we decide that there are other things we want more than him and turn to run away, he will get very angry. Jesus said this as clearly as we could wish in Luke 19:27, “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.” Fearing God means fearing the terrible prospect of running away from the merciful, all-providing, all-satisfying reign of King Jesus.

Hell Means That Sin Is Unfathomably Serious

Jesus’s command that we fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell teaches us to see sin as more serious than we ever dreamed. The reason so many people feel that eternal hell is an unjust punishment for our sin is that they do not see sin as it really is. This is because they do not see God as he really is. When Jesus tells us what he will say to those who are going to hell he says, “Then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matt. 7:23). They are workers of “lawlessness.” That is, they break God’s law. Sin is against God first, then man.

Therefore, the seriousness of sin arises from what it says about God. God is infinitely worthy and honorable. But sin says the opposite. Sin says that other things are more desirable and more worthy. How serious is this? The seriousness of a crime is determined, in part, by the dignity of the person and the office being dishonored. If the person is infinitely worthy and infinitely honorable and infinitely desirable and holds an office of infinite dignity and authority, then rebuffing him is an infinitely outrageous crime. Therefore, it deserves an infinite punishment. The intensity of Jesus’s words about hell is not an overreaction to small offenses. It is a witness to the infinite worth of God and to the outrageous dishonor of human sin.

The Precious Gift of Godly Fear

Therefore, give heed to Jesus’s clear command to fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Hear it as a great mercy. What a wonderful thing it is that Jesus warns us. He does not leave us ignorant of the wrath to come. He not only warns. He rescues. This is the best effect of fear: it wakens us to our need for help and points us to the all-sufficient Redeemer, Jesus. Let it have this effect on you. Let it lead you to Jesus who says to everyone who believes in him, “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32).

Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

Is one justified in rejecting the historicity of the life of Jesus if there are no eyewitnesses to Him and His life, and the accounts are decades after He lived? Is this the standard that historians use? Or is it a double standard?

 
The Strange Case of Hieronymus of Cardia

Hieronymus [356–323 BC] is not a household name, but among historians he’s known for several things. He was an eyewitness to the campaigns of Alexander the Great, but he lived to the age of 104 — long enough to record the first battle between a Roman army and a Hellenistic kingdom. He was a friend and confidant of kings and commanders during the chaotic aftermath of Alexander the Great’s death. He was a military governor in Greece. Furthermore, he managed the asphalt industry on the Dead Sea.

Above all, he is regarded as a key source for many of the most of the history of the years 320–270 BCE. He’s also a prime authority for Plutarch’s famous biographies of Eumenes, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and Pyrrhus. In fact, he’s often cited as the first Greek to write about the rise of Rome.

On the other hand, Dionysius Halicarnassus — writing during the reign of Augustus — called him “a historian no one bothers to finish.” He’s everywhere without being personally a key historical figure.

However:

The bit about him being 104 at the age of his death comes from another author whose work is also lost: Agatharcides of Cnidus who lived roughly sometime in the later 2d century BC — born probably three generations after Hieronymus’ death. We know he discussed Hieronymus because he, in turn, is quoted by Lucian of Samosata (~ 125–180 CE) — about 300 years after Agatharcides and over 400 from Hieronymus.

The oldest surviving work that refers to Hieronymus by name is that of “a certain person named Moschion” who probably would have lived a bit before Agatharcides, writing in Sicily — 750 miles or more from where Hieronymus lived and worked and maybe 75 years after his death. The only thing we know about Moschion is the handful of his pages quoted by Athenaeus, about 450 years after Hieronymus.

There’s no reference to Hieronymus in any Latin source, despite his reputation as an early reporter of Rome. The reference to him being the first Greek to write about Rome comes from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing about 250 years after Hieronymus’ death.

Key biographical details — his relationship with Eumenes, his work for the Antigonid dynasty, and his governorship — only show up in Plutarch, 350 years after Hieronymus’ day.

The history for which he is famous is lost; it exists only in paraphrases or name-checks by later writers. Although there are several facts attributed to him, there is no verbatim quote of anything the wrote. It’s a commonplace among historians that Hieronymus is the main source for much of what is interesting and detailed in the work of Diodorus of Sicily, who wrote 200 years or more after Hieronymus’ death.

Diodorus tends to be somewhat wordy and diffuse, but when he covers the age of Hieronymus he suddenly becomes more detail oriented, has interesting anecdotes, and provides reasonable numbers; this is all assumed to come from Hieronymus. However, although Diodorus does refer to Hieronymus (for example, he tells the story of Diodorus’ job in the asphalt bureau in book 19) he never explicitly quotes him. The common assumption is that big chunks of books 18–20 are basically plagiarized from Hieronymus — but naturally, Diodorus doesn’t tell us this himself.

He’s not quoted by Polybius, whose account overlapped with events he wrote about. His most industrious recyclers are Diodorus and Dionysius during the transition from Roman republic to Roman empire (~200 - 250 years), and then Appian and Plutarch in the second century CE (~ 350 - 400 years).

It’s worth pointing out that not only is he not attested very close to his own lifetime — neither are many of the sources which refer to him. Agatharcides for example has no contemporary mentions — he’s cited by Diodorus, and by early Roman-era writers but none closer to him than a couple of generations.

Diodorus, too, is not referred to by his contemporaries — we have to guess when he died from the contents of his book, which does not refer to any event later than around 32 BC. At least his book survives him — about a third of it, anyway. The last complete copy was destroyed during the Turkish sack of Constantinople. There is no evidence for him that does not come from his own writings, and the oldest explicit quotation from him is from Athenaeus in the latter half of the second century CE, over 200 years from his own time.

Of the people mentioned in this piece by name Plutarch, Appian, Athenaeus, and — of course — emperor Augustus are attested by contemporary sources and known by any other means than their own writings. Only Augustus and Plutarch are known from physical objects (the latter from a single inscription). There is an inscription from Diodorus’ hometown in the name of a Diodorus; we have no way of knowing if it’s the same Diodorus and it offers no clue to the date.

This is how a fairly famous person — a widely cited author, diplomat, and friend of kings — fares in the sources. Hieronymus of Cardia is a figure who is completely familiar to ancient historians; if anything they are often over-eager to spot traces of him — he is almost universally assumed to be the source of most of the interesting and detailed bits of Diodorus and Dionysius in the the era of Alexander’s successors. He routinely shows up in any discussion of the early historiography of Rome.

But he does not pass the contemporary mention test by a country mile. [Source]

The implication: 

Therre are no eyewitness account for the life of Hieronymus of Cardia and no contemporary accounts of him either, yet historians have no doubt or minimal doubt that he existed.

But maybe is just an outlier, surely this is just an anomaly, an exception, an oddity.... 


What about other well known people from history, they certainly are much more documented than people from Bible, right?

Spartacus 103–71 BC

The story of a slave turned gladiator turned revolutionary has been told and retold many times in media. Although a well-known and much-admired historical figure, Spartacus does **not** actually have **any** surviving contemporary records of his life. His enduring fame is in part due to the heroic visage crafted by a priestess of Dionysus, who was also his lover.

The story is mentioned in Plutarch’s biography of Crassus, the wealthy Roman who ultimately put down the uprising led by Spartacus. Parallel Lives was a collection of 48 biographies of prominent historical figures written by the Greek historian in the **second century AD**. Another major source of information about Spartacus came from another Greek, Appian, **writing around a century after the events**.


Hannibal born in 247 B.C

Despite how well-known his great deeds as a general are, there are **no** surviving firsthand accounts of Hannibal - or indeed Carthage at all. The closest thing to a primary source for the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage is the account written by the Greek historian Polybius around **a century later**

The historian was alive for the third and final Punic conflict and spoke to survivors of the second war, but obviously did **not** meet Hannibal himself.

Another major ancient source, which drew on other works from the time that are now lost, was by the Roman historian Livy. The History of Rome was **written in the first century** AD, but only part of the 142-book collection remains. While not considered as objective as Polybius and far removed from the events, Livy’s work fills in a lot of the gaps.

Alexander the Great 356 - 323 BC

At its peak, his empire stretched from the Balkans to the Indus River. Countless pages have been written of his deeds, but almost all were done **long after** his was dead

Our only knowledge comes from the much later works that drew on those long-lost pages. Perhaps the most valuable of all was the tome written by his general Ptolemy, who would later found his own great empire. One of the very few written records that survive from Alexander’s time is an incredibly brief mention of his passing in a small clay tablet of Babylonian astronomical reports.

William Wallace 1270 - 1305 AD

The screenplay for the 1995 film Braveheart occasionally drew upon a poem written by a monk known as Blind Harry in the 15th century.

Because Harry's romanticized account was penned more than **150 years** after the Scottish hero was tried and executed at the behest of Edward I, it’s not exactly going to be a reliable telling of the tale. One of the few contemporary records comes from a **single** English chronicle that doesn’t try to be objective: *…a certain Scot, by name William Wallace, an outcast from pity, a robber, a sacrilegious man, an incendiary and a homicide, a man more cruel than the cruelty of Herod, and more insane than the fury of Nero…*

The passage details an unflattering description of the Scottish defeat at Falkirk in 1298, where Wallace apparently fled the scene before being captured. The time between the loss and his later apprehension was spent in mainland Europe, attempting to raise support for his cause. We know this because one of only **two** surviving documents personally attached to Wallace is a letter written on his behalf by the King of France to the Pope

Attila the Hun (c. 406-453 AD) was one of late antiquity’s most notorious figures, a brutal conqueror who ransacked the weakened Roman Empire.

Little is actually known of the Huns, as they left little evidence behind, and the few contemporary accounts that remain are from sources not disposed to view them favorably. The surviving fragments of a history of Rome written by Ammianus Marcellinus depict a backward, savage people of unknown origin.

As for Attila himself, much of his early life is the subject of speculation from later authors. Jordanes, a **6th-century** Eastern Roman historian, wrote a second hand account as he drew upon the work of Priscus, a fellow Eastern Roman who actually met Attila. Unfortunately, only a few scraps of Priscus’s work remain.

So it seems that historians have no problem in taking as historical, people and events are much less evidence than what the Bible contains.

If anyone uses the "The gospels are not eyewitness accounts" argument to dismiss the Gospels as history, commits the double standard logical fallacy 

Bart Erhman - [He is a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity - he is an atheist/agnostic
Jesus existed. Source for the quotes below]

Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence. Josephus is better attested because we have his own writings. I am also not including Paul because I’m talking only about Jews from Palestine; he was from the Diaspora.

We have four narrative accounts of Jesus’ life and death, written by different people at different times and in different places, based on numerous sources that no longer survive. Jesus was not invented by Mark. He was also known to Matthew, Luke, and John, and to the sources which they used (Q, M, L, and the various sources of John). All of this was within the first century.

This is not to mention sources from outside the New Testament that know that Jesus was a historical figure – for example, 1 Clement and the documents that make up the Didache. Or — need I say it? – every other author of the New Testament (there are sixteen NT authors altogether, so twelve who did not write Gospels), none of whom knew any of the Gospels (except for the author of 1, 2, and 3 John who may have known the fourth Gospel).

By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again).

If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.

But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information.

That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death.

Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John. That’s more or less a death knell for the Mythicist position, as some of them admit. .... Here I am simply stressing that the Gospel traditions themselves provide clear evidence that Jesus was being talked about just a few years after his life in Roman Palestine.

There is more. Good evidence shows that some of the Gospel accounts clearly go back to traditions about Jesus in circulation, originally, in Aramaic, the language of Roman Palestine, where Jesus himself lived. One piece of evidence is that Aramaic words occasionally appear in stories about Jesus, often at the climactic moment. This happens in a variety of stories from a variety of sources. For example, In Mark 5 Jesus raises the daughter of a man named Jairus from the dead. When he comes into her room and raises her, he says to her “Talitha cumi.” The author of Mark translates for us: “Little girl, arise.”

Why would the author leave the key sentence in Aramaic? If you have ever had bi-lingual friends who assume you too know their second language and have heard them tell a joke about something that happened in the other country, you will know that sometimes they give the punch line in the other language, even though the lead up to the line is in English. That’s because often the punch line packs a better punch than the original.

This story about Jairus’s daughter, then, was originally told in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, with the key line left in the original. So too with several stories in a completely different Gospel, the Gospel of John. It happens three times in just 1:35-42. This is a story that circulated in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, the homeland of Jesus and his disciples.

The other reason for knowing that a tradition was originally in Aramaic is because it makes better sense when translated *back* into Aramaic than it does in Greek.

My favorite illustration of this is Jesus’ famous saying: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). The context: Jesus’ disciples have been eating grain from a field on the Sabbath day; the Pharisees object, and Jesus explains that it is permissible to meet human needs on the Sabbath. Then his clever one-liner.

But the one-liner doesn’t make sense. Why would the Son of Man (Jesus) be Lord of the Sabbath BECAUSE Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around? In other words, when he says “therefore” the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, what is the “therefore” there for?

The logic doesn’t work in Greek (or English). But it would work in Aramaic. That’s because in Aramaic the word for “man” and the word for “son of man” are the same word: “Bar enash” (could be translated either way). And so what Jesus said was: “Sabbath was made for bar enash, not bar enash for the Sabbath; therefore bar enash is lord of the Sabbath.” Now it makes sense. The saying was originally transmitted in Aramaic, and when translated into Greek, the translator decided to make the final statement about Jesus, not about humans.

Christianity did not make a big impact on Aramaic-speaking Palestine. The vast majority of Jews in the homeland did not accept Christianity or want anything to do with it. There were not thousands of storytellers there passing on Christian traditions. There were some, of course, especially in Jerusalem.

But the fact that these stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission. You cannot argue that Jesus was made up by some Greek-speaking Christian after Paul’s letters, 

Short story: we are not talking about a Bart Ehrman Jesus figure invented in the year 60. There was widespread information about Jesus from the years after his death. Otherwise, you can’t explain all the literary evidence (dozens of independent sources), some of it based on Aramaic traditions of Jesus’ homeland.

Objection A  - But Jesus is said to be God and rose from the dead. That's a major difference between all these other historical figures

Reply: So, your real objection has to do with the metaphysical implications of saying the Jesus rose from the dead, not the hidtorical nature of the account. That is beyond the scope of this argument.

However, I invite you to read why Philosophical Naturalism [the idea that only the physical exists] is logically self-refuting and why there is evidence for God

Objection B - The eyewitness stuff is important with the Gospels because there is a massive difference between 'I lived with Jesus for a few weeks after he died' and 'I heard others lived with Jesus for a few weeks after he died.

Reply: But the "eyewitness stuff" is apparently not impoertant - see nthe above for how many people/events are considered historical sans eyewitness account. The take Luke, for example, said the he investigated everything from the beginning and wrote an orderly account. This sems to be in line with what other ancient historians did, like Herodotus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian - There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus of the Bible in ancient non-Christian sources