The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

paradox
paradox's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

The Bible teaches us about Christ. “We learn what he did: he preached and taught, drew large crowds, performed miracles. It tells us that he was crucified, that he died, and that he rose from the dead. Some of the teachings most central to Scripture and to the Christian faith tell us of concrete historical events; they therefore tell us of the history and properties of things within the cosmos. Christ died and then rose again; this tells us much about some of the entities within the cosmos. It tells us something about the history, properties, and behavior of his body, for example: namely, that it was dead and then later on alive. It thus tells us that some of the things in the cosmos behaved very differently on this occasion from the way in which they ordinarily behave. The same goes, of course, for the Ascension of Christ, and for the many other miracles reported in Scripture.”---

Alvin Plantinga University of Notre Dame

I believe that the cosmos behaved differently on the occasion of Christ’s death and resurrection, as well as many other “miracles” that are presented in the bible. This belief goes beyond reason and beyond human ability to understand, but that doesn’t mean I have to come to the conclusion that there is no God. It simply means I believe. I can’t prove scientifically in a controlled environment that it happened or that it didn’t happen, I just believe that it is true. John 3:16 says that whoever believes (not reasons) shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Science is just an attempt to understand and there is nothing wrong with that. But science doesn’t understand how things will ALWAYS behave either. For example, watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=414923056147040970&q=what+the+bleep+do+we+know&hl=en

Just because we don’t always understand how things behave, like how Christ was resurrected, doesn’t mean we should come to a quick conclusion that it’s impossible and thus there is no God. We should simply conclude that we don’t understand. Not understanding doesn’t mean we cannot still believe that it is somehow possible. And if we believe that at some point in time, mankind will eventually understand, for example, the mystery presented in the video above, then that is exercising what the Bible defines as faith: “est autem fides sperandorum substantia rerum argumentum non parentum” Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen –Hebrews 11:1 So why not put your faith ability into believing that Christ will give you eternal life?

 

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
paradox wrote: Just because

paradox wrote:
Just because we don’t always understand how things behave, like how Christ was resurrected, doesn’t mean we should come to a quick conclusion that it’s impossible and thus there is no God. We should simply conclude that we don’t understand.

No. There is simply no reliable evidence to support the resurrection of Christ. The fact that it's impossible (as described in the Bible) is really just a bonus. There are no known historical accounts of these events outside the Bible, so why believe they occurred at all? What happened to the Romans who were involved? Didn't they feel like writing about the strange events they witnessed? Why is all of the 'information' about the resurrection found exclusively in the Bible?

Believing that the cosmos worked differently long ago in the way you describe is silly. There's no evidence for it, and it is a rather extreme measure to justify continuing to believe in an ancient text written before science became widespread.

As for the video, I've watched it, and it cannot amount to anything more than an argument from ignorance. It certainly doesn't support Christianity.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Yes, and the cosmos works

Yes, and the cosmos works differently whenever The Flying Spaghetti Monster presses me with his noodly appendage.  It also works differently for when Mohammed flew on his magic horse.  Not to mention the fact that it acted differently when Anakin Skywalker used the force to kill all those sand-people. 

This kind of belief, one that says taht the rules change for what you believe, can be applied to anything.  It is the highest of credulity and a willingness to create separate epistemological criteria for some things and not others.  You can believe whatever you want based on this method, because even if it is absurd and totally impossible, all you need to say is that the universe acted differently whenever something you want to believe doesn't mesh with what we know of the world.

Why would you want to believe things like this?  What is the advantage of believing it? 

Oh, and by the way; I know God doesn't exist.  You want to know how?  Well, because whenever I think about whether a god exists or not, the natural universe grants me the ability to transcend my epistemological limitations to grant me absolute certainty concerning the matter.  You can't test it in any way, because when this happens the universe is behaving differently and the tests would not be able to detect it.   

Shaun 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
paradox wrote:The Bible

paradox wrote:

The Bible teaches us about Christ. “We learn what he did: he preached and taught, drew large crowds, performed miracles.

And yet no one noticed. As someone already stated above, there are no contemporary reports of Jesus, yet Plantinga wants to hold that Jesus drew large crowds, worked miracles, and went completely unnoticed by anyone from his time?

Quote:

It tells us that he was crucified, that he died, and that he rose from the dead. Some of the teachings most central to Scripture and to the Christian faith tell us of concrete historical events; they therefore tell us of the history and properties of things within the cosmos. Christ died and then rose again; this tells us much about some of the entities within the cosmos. It tells us something about the history

And yet no historian ever noticed any jesus the christ.

I can't believe someone as supposedly intelligent as Plantinga would make so many clearly irrational claims. If there really were a crowd drawing, miracel working Jesus, then why didn't anyone notice?

 

Quote:
It thus tells us that some of the things in the cosmos behaved very differently on this occasion from the way in which they ordinarily behave.

What an utterly childish argument!

One book asserts a miracle occured, without any corroboration of the claim. And from this Plantinga overturns naturalism! He simply assumes the bible account is true, and chooses to hold to it, over reality!

Talk about begging the question!

The sane response (note I'm not just saying rational, I'm saying 'sane&#39Eye-wink is to hold that the bible account is not likely to be true, given that we have good reasons to hold to naturalism.

I'd like to now demonstrate that there is no historical case for Jesus: 

 

A Silence that Screams

- Todangst (with Rook Hawkins)

"[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime. This does not disprove his existence, but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world. Someone should have noticed." - Dan Barker

It may surprise Christians to learn that there are no contemporary historical documents for 'Jesus, the Christ'. While some apologists attempt to wave this problem away by claiming that "Jesus"would not have be en a noteworthy figure, this contradicts what the Gospels say about Jesus. Even the relatively sober account of Jesus found in the first gospel, The Gospel of 'Mark', gives an account of Jesus as someone who garnered quite a bit of attention. Consider for example, Mark 2:1-12, where the crowd coming to see Jesus is so great that a paralytic has to be lowered through the roof of a building Jesus is in, in order for Jesus to see him. Consider how the crowds so overflow that he has to lecture from a boat on the Sea of Galilee. Mark tells us of how Jesus performed miracles before thousands: on two different occasions Jesus feeds thousands through miracles (see for example, Mark 8:1). When Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem, throngs of people line the roads to welcome him.

In short, 'Mark' gives us a 'Jesus' who is bigger than the Beatles, and I believe the Beatles analogy is a good one. We even have a nice parallel between the story of Jesus' lecture at Galilee, and the Beatles famous 'rooftop' audition, where they were forced to play an impromptu concert on a rooftop, lest the crowds that would rush to see them cause a riot. In both cases, the crowds had reached, hysterical, historically noteworthy,proportions. Yet, John E. Remsberg, in 'The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence' (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25) makes the curious observation that no one from this era wrote a single word about the Jesus Hysteria. Remsberg notes: "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

Let's take a look at the more notable names on his list, just to get an idea, again, of how glaring this silence is... We can call this list:

"They Would Have Noticed"

Philo (~20 BCE - ~40 CE) was a Hellenized Jew who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. He visited the Temple in Jerusalem, and corresponded with family there. He wrote a great many books on religion and philosophy which survive to this day, and mentioned many of his contemporaries. His main theological contribution was the development of the Logos, the "Word" that opens the Gospel of John. Yet Philo not once mentions Jesus, anybody who could be mistaken for Jesus, or any of the events of the New Testament. His last writings come from 40 CE, only a few years after the end of Pontius Pilate's reign, when he was part of an embassy sent by the Alexandrian Jews to the Roman Emperor Caligula.

Philo wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre (which also has no independent corroboration) supposedly occurred. He was there when Christ supposedly would have made his triumphal entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead would have taken place--when Christ himself supposedly would have rose from the dead. Yet, none of these events are ever mentioned by him.

It simply makes no sense that Philo would not have recorded something about the Markian conceptualization of Jesus.

Pliny the Elder (~23 CE - 79 CE) wrote a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor; he even writes about the Essenes in Natural History, section V, 15 . Yet nowhere in his works is any mention of the Jesus phenomena described in Mark.

Pliny also provides us with a direct refutation of the Gospel claims of earthquakes and eclipses. Pliny collected data on all manner of natural and astronomical phenomena, even those which were legendary - which he himself did not necessarily regard as factual, yet he records no prodigies associated with the beliefs of Christians, such as an earthquake or darkening of the skies at a crucifixion, or any star of Bethlehem.

After Philo and Pliny the Elder one of the most damning omission would be in the works of Josephus.

Josephus (37-100 AD) was not a contemporary and could not have been a first hand eyewitness of "Jesus", however, as a Jewish historian who focused on Jewish history and religion, he would have been greatly interested in the appearance of the Jewish Messiah.

Josephus wrote The Antiquities of the Jews, See his works here. This is a work that focused on Jewish history from "Adam" to Josephus' time. Yet, while Josephus devotes a good deal of space ton John the Baptist and other historical figures mentioned in the Gospels (He gives a detailed account of Pontius Pilate in The Jewish Wars, http://www.inu.net/skeptic/gospels.html) he does not appear to have actually written anything at all concerning the life of Jesus the Christ! This is 'damning' considering that we would expect that the appearance of the Jewish Messiah ought to have dominated a work dedicated to Jewish history.

For this very reason, the claim that Josephus never mentions Jesus was a concern for early Christians. For this reason it is no surprise that there is a later interpolation into the Antiquities of a reference to Jesus. The infamous "Testimonium Flavium" appears to have been inserted into the Antiquities in the 4th century. A key proof for this comes from the fact that while early Christians cited Josephus, none of them ever cited the Testimonium, even in situations where they were striving to provide historical proof for Jesus:

  • Justin Martyr (circa C.E. 100-165) never once quoted the passage -- even in the face of charges that Christians had "invented some sort of Christ for themselves" and that they had accepted "a futile rumor" (Dialogue with Trypho 8; circa C.E. 135).
  • Origen (circa C.E. 185-254), who in his own writings relies extensively upon the works of Josephus, does not mention this passage or any other passage in Josephus that mentions Christ. Not even when he is in dialogue against Celsus' accusations!
  • Jerome (circa C.E. 347-420) cites Josephus 90 times, but never once cites the Testimonium.
Logic itself tells us that had Josephus written the Testimonium, he would have written more than 3 lines concerning the existence of the Jewish Messiah in a book dedicated to Jewish History!

Remsberg writes:
"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly fourty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines."

-- The Christ, by John E. Remsburg, reprinted by Prometheus Books, New York, 1994, pages 171-3.

Logic also provides us with yet another powerful clue as to the falsity of the Testimonium:: Josephus lived and died a Jew, never converting to Christianity. Ergo we can say that Josephus is silent on the matter of the life of Jesus the Christ.

It should also be noted that some argue that Antiquities section 20.9 makes an indirect reference to Jesus. This claim is examined here and also here There is good reason to believe that the reference to a "Jesus' here is actually a reference to Jesus, son of Damneus, and not 'Jesus, son of Joseph'. And again, the idea that a Historian would mention the Messiah, in passing, and not elswhere, in detail, is simply inane.


Plutarch (ca. 46 - 127), again, was not a contemporary, he wrote about the same time as Josephus, about contemporary Roman figures, oracles, prophesies, and moral, religious, and spiritual issues. A figure such as Jesus, whom the Gospels portray as interacting with Roman figures, making prophecies, and giving sermons on novel religious and spiritual issues to throngs of people, would have been of great interest to him. Yet we cannot find even a word about "Jesus" from Plutarch.

Seneca the Younger (ca. 4 BC–AD 65) philosopher and statesman, who wrote both philosophical works and papers on morality. He lived during the purported time of Jesus, in the general area of Jesus, and would have had contact with Roman authorities who in turn would have had contacts with Jesus. Yet, he does not take note of any of the miraculous events reported in the gospels.

Justus of Tiberius ( ? - 95 ?) Remsberg states that "Justus was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He was a contemporary and rival of Josephus. He wrote a history of Jewish people Kings (who the gospels state Jesus had interactions with) covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This work perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the 9th century, was acquainted with it and said, "He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did." (Photius, Bibliotheca, Code 33)."

Dio Chrysostom (c. 40–c. 120) was a Greek orator, writer, philosopher and historian of the Roman Empire in the first century. Eighty of his Discourses remain in existence. While Chrysostom was not a contemporary of Jesus' purported time (He was a contemporary of Plutarch, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger) he was both a historian and a person with great interest in moral matters. His philosophy has been considered a moral parallel to that of Paul of Tarsus and indicates that the early Greek Christians drew upon the Cynic and Stoic philosophies when developing their Christian faith. So we again have an early writer who certainly would have had interest in Jesus as Mark or any of the other Gospels, present him.


Epictetus (55-130) Again, Epictetus was not born until sometime after the purported time of Jesus, however, his silence remains noteworthy. The best known Stoic was a slave, whose master was Nero’s secretary. A translator of Epictetus, Elizabeth Carter, was baffled that he was not a Christian. “There are so many of the sentiments and expressions of Christianity in it, that one should be strongly tempted to think that Epictetus was acquainted with the New Testament,..” [p. xxii] Well, he was not and never even so much as mentions Christians in passing. He lived in Rome and as a slave to Epaphroditus, a senior member of Nero’s government would have known of the fire and the Christian sacrifice in the aftermath. However, all he has to say about Nero is his persecution of some good men who refused to attend his performances.

They all should have noticed. It appears that none did.

All that is left for us is to sum up what this means for "Jesus" of the Gospels. The historian Edward Gibbons does this summing up for us:

"But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those evidences which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe" (Rome, Vol. I, pp. 588-590).

Could the most amazing event ever go unnoticed? Only the intellectual dishonest can answer with a "yes".
  And this means Plantinga is either intellectually dishonest, or incompetent, when he holds that there actually was a miracle working, crowd drawing 'Jesus'.  One more reason why Plantinga cannot be taken seriously on matters of theology. 


Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


paradox
paradox's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

The quote icon is not working for me, so...

rexlunae wrote: As for the video, I've watched it, and it cannot amount to anything more than an argument from ignorance. It certainly doesn't support Christianity

The point I was making with the video was that science cannot predict the behavior of the cosmos all of the time, thus resurrection is possible behavior.

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."


paradox
paradox's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

 

If there really were a crowd drawing, miracel working Jesus, then why didn't anyone notice? Someone did. cf. the NT. However, when WE look back in hind-sight with what Christanity has become, we may tend to exaggerate the record by anachronistically inflating the significance of the observable earthly work of Jesus of Nazereth. It is helpful to notice that, in actuality, Jesus' primary public actions were mainly in Galilee (hicksville). And only later, when He set His course to go to Jerusalem was He venturing out into the public of any modest significance.

If some young lady were a world class violinist in rural Iowa or the Louisana bayou prior to the advent of T.V. --and never ventured out of those homely beginnings-- would America, much less the World, ever know about her? Probably not. That is, not until some enterprising reporter or grad. student later did the research on this obscure person.

"[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime.

 This is easily attributable to Jesus' relative obscurity during His lifetime --as areadly described. In addition, its worthwhile to remember that much historical record of Judea was likely lost in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. So, (though a speculation from silence) IF there were contemporaneous accounts: in Galilee they probably would NOT be written accounts, and in Jerusalem they likely perished.

This does not disprove his existence. . .

 Obviously not.

. . .but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world.

 Only if one presupposes that Jesus of Nazereth was "widely known" and "making an impact on the World" within His lifetime. He wasn't (in the public sociological sense of that phrase --though in the theological sense He obviously was).

It may surprise Christians to learn that there are no contemporary historical documents for 'Jesus, the Christ'.

 Not really.

While some apologists attempt to wave this problem away by claiming that "Jesus"would not have be en a noteworthy figure, this contradicts what the Gospels say about Jesus.

 Yes to believers He is/was noteworthy. To unbelievers just another kooky rabbi.

Even the relatively sober account of Jesus found in the first gospel, The Gospel of 'Mark', gives an account of Jesus as someone who garnered quite a bit of attention. Consider for example, Mark 2:1-12, where the crowd coming to see Jesus is so great that a paralytic has to be lowered through the roof of a building Jesus is in, in order for Jesus to see him. Consider how the crowds so overflow that he has to lecture from a boat on the Sea of Galilee. Mark tells us of how Jesus performed miracles before thousands: on two different occasions Jesus feeds thousands through miracles (see for example, Mark 8:1). When Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem, throngs of people line the roads to welcome him.

 99+% percent of which persons were illiterate. The notion that there might have been a stenographer present is highly unlikely. The oral traditions among the poor hicks who were present at those events survive in the Gospels --not in the pages of the literati of Jewish scribal production, or Roman historians.

 

**This was a friend's response, not my (paradox's) words** I thought his response was well put.

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
So why didn't Jesus write

So why didn't Jesus write something himself? Surely God wouldn't be illiterate! And it would certainly have cleared things up!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


paradox
paradox's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

Jesus is quoted in John 5:31 of saying "If I {alone} testify about Myself, My testimony is not true."  

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
So Jesus lies?????

So Jesus lies?????


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: rexlunae wrote: As

Quote:
rexlunae wrote: As for the video, I've watched it, and it cannot amount to anything more than an argument from ignorance. It certainly doesn't support Christianity

The point I was making with the video was that science cannot predict the behavior of the cosmos all of the time, thus resurrection is possible behavior.

Initially I didn't want to reply, considering a reply to such your original post worthless, but now I feel forced to.

The video is actually perfectly correct from a physics point, but its greatest mistake is that it doesn't tell:

- what happens from a deeper perspective

- what the conditions of the experiment were

- what hasn't been noticed at first

If you were to take that video as one addressing kids that are just about to begin a journey into quantum physics, it's OK. But the conclusion that you have drawn from it is not only an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from EXTREME ignorance.

Let me explain the bits of that video that I think have led you to the conclusion that the Universe doesn't behave the same way always:

1. electrons behaving in a wave-like way: the big difference between the marble and the electron (and that, of course, HASN'T been presented in the movie) is that the marble doesn't generate a significant electrostatic field compared to its size. The electrostatic field that an electron generates, based on its size, is at least 100,000 times greater than that of the marble, when compared to the marble's size. So whereas the marble can be considered, through approximation, an electrostatically-neutral object, the electron can be considered whatever else BUT that. Furthermore, if we dwelve deeper into the field theories coroborated with motion, we get why that wave-like pattern arises: movement and motric modification of the electromagnetic field. You generate electric current to power up your computer in pretty much the same way.

2. electrons having the same wave-like pattern even when shot one at a time: this is also true, but what the clip fails to note is that the patterns aren't perfectly identical when shot one at a time, compared to when shot multiple at a time. That leads us to consider that there is, perhaps, another field difformity causing electrons to move that way. Since (as stated above) the marble isn't much electrostatically charged, compared to its mass, it will obviously not be affected by the material that plate with two slots is made up of, be it a gravitational pull (yes, that exists not only when referring to planets) or an electrostatic field too weak to affect an object as heavy as the marble, but strong enough to affect an electron.

3. electrons changing their behavior when observed: this is partially false. The clip fails (again) to tell us HOW the electrons were observed. The electrostatic field produced by one single electron is feeble enough to not be measurable through direct means. It is noticeable only in the context of the interaction with another field (electromagnetic). However, exposing an electron to another field automatically changes the resulting field that acts on the actual matter of the electron, thus giving him a different behavior. This is perfectly normal, and, actually this test hasn't been performed to prove that we know nothing, but exactly the opposite, to prove beyond doubt that the elecron is in fact matter and behaves accordingly (considering the similarity with the margle). What the video also doesn't say is that the electron behaves THE SAME whenever it is "observed"...

(all gentlemen that aren't extremely ignorant on science please do not burn me for having to explain like to a child)

So your argument is one from ignorance, as rexlunae said. It doesn't prove what you just said, but actually proves that the current relational matrix that humanity has discovered and thought for the Universe is actually surprisingly accurate.

Also, since science obviously doesn't have the necessary computing power to predict everything correctly all the time, from where do you get the impression that this is proof of resurrection being possible? I may accept the first part of the sentence, but the second is a complete non-sequitur.

 

Also let me rephrase your signature (bolded the addition):

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are, but you now believe you're smarter, too."

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


paradox
paradox's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

Again,  Rigor_OMortis, you are narcissistically boasting! My premise, as humble as it is, is that science does not fully understand how the cosmos exists and functions to the extant of positively concluding that resurrection is impossible. However, the only resurrection you left brains can understand is the "sure erection" you get while admiring your unrestricted arrogance!

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: My premise,

Quote:
My premise, as humble as it is, is that science does not fully understand how the cosmos exists and functions to the extant of positively concluding that resurrection is impossible.

Then allow me to ask you why hasn't such a thing ever happened again? Why doesn't such a thing ever happen in a controlled, monitored environment (this can be asked about all miracles, actually)?

I might be arrogant (and I admit that I am, sometimes, perhaps even in the post on this thread, and yes, I do apologize for stating it's an argument from extreme ignorance), but that doesn't change the fact that your video "proof" of the Universe not acting the same always is simply an argument from ignorance.

Under this light, one can only presume that the statement "the Universe doesn't always behave according to rulse" is simply a statement.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
paradox wrote: If there

paradox wrote:

 

If there really were a crowd drawing, miracel working Jesus, then why didn't anyone notice? Someone did. cf. the NT.

You're begging the question that the NT was an eyewitness account. But there are good reasons do deny this. See here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash

And you're ignoring the actual argument before you: why didn't any secular source record these events?

Quote:

However, when WE look back in hind-sight with what Christanity has become, we may tend to exaggerate the record by anachronistically inflating the significance of the observable earthly work of Jesus of Nazereth.

Again, I cited the book of Mark, which holds that there were 1) massive crowds who 2) witnessed miracles.

So how can anyone who could write, ignore this? Please don't repeat that most couldn't write, we know some could, and that is why I listed such people above.

Quote:

"[T]here is not a single contemporary historical mention of Jesus, not by Romans or by Jews, not by believers or by unbelievers, not during his entire lifetime.

This is easily attributable to Jesus' relative obscurity during His lifetime

Except that that claim contradicts the Gospels, and common sense.  Did you bother to read the argument you think you're responding to, where I cite the book of Mark which claims that Jesus was a crowd drawing, miracle working god-man?

I predicted on my book page that theists will ignore the points on mark, no matter how many times I point it out. Mark holds that jesus drew massive crowds, and wowed them with miracles.

So is there any reason to respond to me if you're going to ignore the key point of my argument?

Quote:


. . .but it certainly casts great doubt on the historicity of a man who was supposedly widely known to have made a great impact on the world.

Only if one presupposes that Jesus of Nazereth was "widely known" and "making an impact on the World" within His lifetime.

The book of mark explicitly states he made a major impact. So you have to contradict your own bible here.

 

Quote:

Even the relatively sober account of Jesus found in the first gospel, The Gospel of 'Mark', gives an account of Jesus as someone who garnered quite a bit of attention. Consider for example, Mark 2:1-12, where the crowd coming to see Jesus is so great that a paralytic has to be lowered through the roof of a building Jesus is in, in order for Jesus to see him. Consider how the crowds so overflow that he has to lecture from a boat on the Sea of Galilee. Mark tells us of how Jesus performed miracles before thousands: on two different occasions Jesus feeds thousands through miracles (see for example, Mark 8:1). When Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem, throngs of people line the roads to welcome him.

99+% percent of which persons were illiterate.

But the argument before you lists people who were literate, who could have recorded the events of a miracle working, crowd drawing man-god. Yet no one noticed.

My points are that the book of Mark hold that jesus was a miracle working, crowd drawing, god-man. It's simply not sane to say that no secular source would not have noticed that.

So please, before you respond again, respond to that point.

 

By the way, here's the addendum for this article:

 

Addendum:

If you are a christian, looking to respond, please save yourself some time and just post "Number 1" or "Number 2"

1) No one would have noticed, because "Jesus" was a minor figure.

- This ignores the points about the book of Mark I made, completely dodging the argument before you. You will reassert 1 again, I will again repeat the previous point, until one of us tires and moves on.

2) The people I listed wouldn't care about writing about a god striding the earth in earthly form, attracting throngs of people and working miracles... because they prefered to focus on other things... like philosophy. And clearly, people dealing with philosophy -- the meaning of life, matters of the true nature of existence, would not be interested in um... god, because... um.. that has nothing to do with the meaning of life...

I will respond by saying "You're argument is daft, if you think no one else would bother to care' and you will respond by saying "But Remsberg was refuted long ago!" and I will again make the obvious point that it's ridiculous to claim that a historian or a philosopher wouldn't be interested in mentioning that he saw a god man working miracles, and then again, one of us will tire of the game.

Please also add this to my prediction: you'll give one of the arguments anyway, despite the fact that I've already outlined the error.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


paradox
paradox's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

I'm guessing the reason something like that hasn't happened since or in a cotrolled environment is that "we" are not in control of causing such an event ( that we know of ).  I'm just trying to keep an open mind on the subject. All humanity being resurrected one day may be a lie to control others behavior OR it may be true. If it is true, then when the day comes I would like to have been prepared. Pascal's wager makes sense to me, but it doesn't mean God exists. It just means I'd rather not gamble with my possible eternity. The frustating thing is that I cannot seem to behave correctly 100% of the time to meet the entrance requirments for "heaven".  So now what do I do?

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm guessing the

Quote:
I'm guessing the reason something like that hasn't happened since or in a cotrolled environment is that "we" are not in control of causing such an event ( that we know of ).  I'm just trying to keep an open mind on the subject.

I'm dead curious what the point of miracles is in that case. False "miracles" all over the world seem to attract only the naive, the gullible and those that are deluded beyond all hope. Is that the crowd God wants to gather? Why, for instance, wouldn't God send a messenger that would do miracles that are beyond any scientifica explanations in the presence of skeptics and under controlled environment? Why wouldn't one simply come and say "I am sent by God, I have the ability to perform this miracle and for this timespan only, under these conditions", and ask outright that he is tested by anyone? Why isn't there that nobody requests audience on main channels saying "I can do this, and I'm willing to prove it to whoever wishes. This is my contact address/phone number, you can contact me whenever you wish, whoever you are" ? Surely, the broadcasted miracle of an amputee being restored a limb live would sway many.

Quote:
All humanity being resurrected one day may be a lie to control others behavior OR it may be true.

So you seem to understand what the purpose of religion might truly be. Why, then, doesn't it strike you that all religions of all countries seem to have a similar aim? How can you know which God to trust? I've asked people who have turned to Christianity "How do you know that you have turned to the right God?" - and most simply replied "Because I just know." - which basically equates to that they actually don't have a clue. I'm not a great fan of conspiracy theories, but if you notice the possible implications, and the possible linings of a problem, why doesn't it strike you that something's rotten in Denmark?

Quote:
If it is true, then when the day comes I would like to have been prepared.

Prepared? And how would you be "prepared" ? Do you have the necessary arrogance to think that God will simply end the world while you're still alive, so that your "preparations" are not in vain? Actually, many people have had it, and they've been proven wrong by history. I don't have it. And I consider that if the whole religion thing is true, I will roast in Hell quite well before the world will actually grind to a halt.

Quote:
Pascal's wager makes sense to me

Pascal's wager makes sense only if you don't take into consideration any other religion. Once you start being open-minded and honest about them and admitting that you have no way of knowing that yours is the only true one, Pascal's wager crumbles to dust. Because if the Muslims are right, there will be no difference between you and me in terms of whether or not we go to Hell.

Quote:
It just means I'd rather not gamble with my possible eternity.

So you mean that you believe in God because you don't want to take chances? Come on! You can do better than that!

Quote:
The frustating thing is that I cannot seem to behave correctly 100% of the time to meet the entrance requirments for "heaven".  So now what do I do?

Nobody will ever be able to behave 100% correctly according to Christian strict laws. These laws have been made so that they are broken constantly by our nature as humans. Take, for example: "Do not covet thy neighbour's possessions or wife" - how will you be able to fulfill this one? Will you simply stop all thoughts for women that you just see on the streets or in bars, or wherever, just because they might be married (I assume you are a man, please correct if I'm wrong)? And about objects: you see a commercial for, let's say, orange juice. You want it right there, right now, because it happens to be a hot day and you're dying of thirst. Is it OK to covet it? No, it's not OK, because that film was made after an original bottle of orange juice that happens to be the property of the company that produces them, which happens to be the property of one or more humans. So it's impossible to behave accordingly: doing that would simply nullify our desires, and would make us simply robots.

You seem to realize that religion is possibly only installed to control humans and "steer" them into the direction deemed necessary by whoever is the navigator. Why don't you analyze what religion offers and demands, relative to this possibility. If you do that correctly, at least some of the following things will strike you:

- God requires many things which would have no relevance to an omniscient, omnipotent creator

- there's lots of myth in the story of Christianity, many of which, even taken metaphorically, is way too mystical to be comprehensible alltogether

- there's a fascination with the magic of numbers: 3, 6, 7, 12...

- there's a dichotomy which is typical to humans: the one of good and evil... yet very few realize that you take away the human, and there's no good and evil anymore

- good and evil are portrayed as absolute, when they are not

- there's always this promise of a heaven... and this narrow path that leads to it. One wrong step and you might roast forever... and the path of Heaven is so difficult to take, that it only seems possible, yet very faint

- there's always this feeling of guilt... man is always wrong and sinful, her never does the right things, he can never seem to keep up his work... Christianity is always demanding more and more: give all assets to the poor, be humble, don't retaliate, etc. - thus transforming believers into sheep that will listen to the shepherd's every word, no matter how absurd or contradictory to their moral values (Crusades, Inquisition are just two examples)

- there's always an appeal to emotion - slaughter of children, crucification, suffering of Christ (and "Passion of Christ" didn't do anything to improve the situation)...

- it's impossible to not notice the cruelty of Yahweh

Think a bit rationally, and you will come to the same conclusion as atheists. Believing just because you don't want to risk your eternity is simply lying to yourself.

And I might just be an arrogant bastard, but you'll have to admit that I'm right, at least in this last part of the reply.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


paradox
paradox's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

todanst, those responses were not mine. I belong to a yahoo Christian group and posted your original response on there in hopes that someone would help me see a different angle to debate from. A respected fellow Christian responded and I posted his response on here to which now you have debated further. What a waste of time my decision was for the two of us. I apologize.

I haven't researched enough Christian history to debate about Origen or Josephus, etc. But I'm glad you brought them up!

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
paradox wrote:todanst,

paradox wrote:

todanst, those responses were not mine.

Ok.

Quote:
 

I belong to a yahoo Christian group and posted your original response on there in hopes that someone would help me see a different angle to debate from. A respected fellow Christian responded and I posted his response on here to which now you have debated further. What a waste of time my decision was for the two of us. I apologize.

 It's a waste of time because the responder simply ignored the argument.

In order to respond to my argument, he must not ignore the key elements.

1) Mark describes a Jesus that could not have gone unnoticed.

2) I present a series of writers capable of noticing and writing.

3) None do.

So in order to respond, he must deal with my premises 1 and 2.

Any response that ignores either of those points is a waste of time. 

Quote:


I haven't researched enough Christian history to debate about Origen or Josephus, etc. But I'm glad you brought them up!

Good. I'm glad to hear that.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


paradox
paradox's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

I have had too many "spiritual" experiences to know that there is something more, there is something bigger than me that I'm a part of, and that I must submit to. My experiences do not line up perfectly with any "religion". I can apply my experiences to a religion and then my experiences may make sense in the context of that religion, which is probably what I've done with Christianity. 

To be honest, my Christianity gives me comfort when I feel so alone in such a hostal universe...to know that I'm chosen, loved and adored, and protected by a power that I can never be seperated from. Then all the doubts and questions come flooding in. Questions that I'm sure may never be answered until after I die. So I figure I choose when to confront those questions and when not to, hence my activity at this site. I admit Christianity doesn't make perfect sense, but according to the bible, Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc claim all I have to do is believe (not reason logically) to be saved from such a hostal universe. 

 Proverbs 3:5-6 says " Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight". So I ask myself, who or what is this "Lord" that will direct my life's events? I reflect upon my recent past and can see how, what must be a power greater than I, has intervined. However, I seem to not have any conscious control over this "power". Things just happen. I don't remember asking to exist, but yet "I think therefore I am", right? So then I begin to question and to see where my questions lead me. Also I assume I've asked the correct questions, but how do I know my original premise was the right question? And so goes the Fibionacci-like downward spiral of questioning...which somehow has lead me here and being here must have it's purpose.

What is Love? The bible says that God is love, so if that is true and we all have the ability to love, then aren't we all connected to God somehow?

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
paradox wrote: I have had

paradox wrote:
I have had too many "spiritual" experiences to know that there is something more, there is something bigger than me that I'm a part of, and that I must submit to. My experiences do not line up perfectly with any "religion".

So your religion says that you are part of something larger than yourself, but there are no religions that agree with you.  So it's just you and god.  Sounds pretty lonely.  Surely you must be able to see how your subjective experiences do not amount to a reason to believe for anyone else, and it would be wise of you to entertain the notion that you may be deluding yourself.

paradox wrote:
To be honest, my Christianity gives me comfort when I feel so alone in such a hostal universe...to know that I'm chosen, loved and adored, and protected by a power that I can never be seperated from. Then all the doubts and questions come flooding in. Questions that I'm sure may never be answered until after I die. So I figure I choose when to confront those questions and when not to, hence my activity at this site.

Well, if you just believe in Christianity because it feels good, and you aren't willing to entertain doubt, I don't think there is anything to be gained by anyone in your postings here.  This site if for people who are willing to ask the hard questions, not hide from them.  If you are going to post here, you should be willing to confront the questions that are not comfortable to you at any time.

paradox wrote:
I admit Christianity doesn't make perfect sense, but according to the bible, Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc claim all I have to do is believe (not reason logically) to be saved from such a hostal universe.

Sounds like pure delusion to me.  Someone once said that blind obedience is an ironic gift to offer to the inventor of reason.

paradox wrote:
What is Love? The bible says that God is love, so if that is true and we all have the ability to love, then aren't we all connected to God somehow?

We all have the ability to make love, so that would mean in the same way that we all have the ability to make god.  Hmmm... 

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
*Insert "what is love?"

*Insert "what is love?" song joke*

*Insert "Oh god" during loving joke* 


paradox
paradox's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

Surely you must be able to see how your subjective experiences do not amount to a reason to believe for anyone else, and it would be wise of you to entertain the notion that you may be deluding yourself.

Everyone's experiences are subjective and those subjective experiences manefest themselves as beliefs. If you had an experience where you thought you smelled the odor of natural gas in your kitchen and you believed that your observation was correct, then you would act upon your belief.

 Also, I am here to entertain the thought that I may be deluding myself. However, those decisions are not for you to decide just as our subjective experiences may not amount to a reason for anyone else to believe.

This site if for people who are willing to ask the hard questions, not hide from them.

So you've truthfully asked yourself all the hard questions concerning Christianity and aren't trying to hide from the possibility the we are spiritual beings as well as physical?

Again I'll ask you what does the word symbol "Love" mean to you?

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I have had too many

Quote:
I have had too many "spiritual" experiences to know that there is something more, there is something bigger than me that I'm a part of, and that I must submit to. My experiences do not line up perfectly with any "religion". I can apply my experiences to a religion and then my experiences may make sense in the context of that religion, which is probably what I've done with Christianity.

Hundreds of thousands of people have had this feeling. Millions of people have therefore created gods to explain them. Millions of people have seen their gods, who they had worshipped for hundreds of years, maybe even millenias, go "poof" throughout history. Roman gods, Greek gods, Mayan and Aztec gods, literally thousands of beliefs and religions, all smashed, right in their faces.

You have defined your own religion that "is similar to" Christianity. Couldn't you have developed it to be similar with Taoism? Considering that the majority of people in your immediate surrounding are Christians, I guess not.

You simply say that your belief based on, practically, a dream, or a series of dreams, is "definitely out there" because of what?

Quote:
To be honest, my Christianity gives me comfort when I feel so alone in such a hostal universe...

No offense, but you know what this sounds like? This sounds like the ostracized kid in school inventing imaginary friends and playing with them. It seems so real and so comforting. There have been serious thoughts on whether or not the processes are actualy related. But that doesn't change the fact that those friends are purely and simply imaginary.

Quote:
to know that I'm chosen, loved and adored, and protected by a power that I can never be seperated from.

Oh, it's so nice to think like that. It's so easy and so comforting. It's nothing like a glimpse of harsh reality, which shows that we are actually insignificant parasites of an insignificant planet, orbiting around an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy... Someone posted a picture of Saturn, compared, in size, with Earth. That picture alone speaks for itself.

Quote:
I admit Christianity doesn't make perfect sense, but according to the bible, Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc claim all I have to do is believe (not reason logically) to be saved from such a hostal universe.

You believe. Does it change anything? Can't a guy still bust in your home and shoot you to death?

The only "escape" is death. And whether you're a Christian, or a Muslim, or an atheist, it's the same for all. We all die, and only then do we truly leave this Universe. Until then, you're simply in the same situation as everybody else, no matter how intense you believe.

Quote:
I reflect upon my recent past and can see how, what must be a power greater than I, has intervined.

By all means, do feel free to show us just how your past was changed by this superior being (of course, if it's not too personal).

Quote:
However, I seem to not have any conscious control over this "power".

We don't have either. It's called the Universe. It has dictated every little circumstance of your past until birth, and it will also dictate after your death. A single atom's position altered in the history, and you might end up being a Buddhist. There's no secret in this. And definitely no mystery.

Quote:
Also I assume I've asked the correct questions, but how do I know my original premise was the right question? And so goes the Fibionacci-like downward spiral of questioning...which somehow has lead me here and being here must have it's purpose.

All too difficult reasoning, so simply give up and say "ah, this must have a purpose" ? If you don't have the strength to go on, is accepting something simply because it SEEMS to explain all right? Some people have had the strength to go on. Little by little, generation after generation, reality is put to the test, verified and classified. Doesn't that feel a little more logical to believe in, although everybody acknowledges that such a process cannot claim to hold all right answers?

Quote:
What is Love? The bible says that God is love, so if that is true and we all have the ability to love, then aren't we all connected to God somehow?

What if the Bible was simply not a "holy book" ? What if some of its books were, in fact, odes for the heroic history of the Jewish people? What if others were simply fables, or stories, or myths? What if the four evangelists were simply trying to transmit spoken stories through writing, and thay happened to cover the same story?

I can define love through a complex of cerebral and endocrinal stimuli. Could it be that that part of the Bible is just a metaphor?

Quote:
Everyone's experiences are subjective and those subjective experiences manefest themselves as beliefs. If you had an experience where you thought you smelled the odor of natural gas in your kitchen and you believed that your observation was correct, then you would act upon your belief.

No, I wouldn't. I would first check it. There's no point in alarming all people inside a building just because I thought I smelled something. Checking implies action, true, but it is different from the action I would take if that belief was really confirmed.

Quote:
However, those decisions are not for you to decide just as our subjective experiences may not amount to a reason for anyone else to believe.

Perhaps if you told a psychologist or psychiatrist that, he might disagree with you.

Quote:
So you've truthfully asked yourself all the hard questions concerning Christianity and aren't trying to hide from the possibility the we are spiritual beings as well as physical?

I have. And once I've come to understanding the workings of the human brain, I've come to the conclusion that we are strictly material.

Just for the fun of it I've taken part in an experiment involving generating, through magnetic influence, the impression one gets when a fly lands on the skin. And it did feel completely real. I would just go about and smack myself out of reflex, because my brain was certain that there's a fly on that area. Once it was over, I started asking and seeking knowledge on how the human brain works, and once I got them, I have come to the conclusion that our existence can be explained through material means only. Like Gauss saying about God: "I had no need for that hypotheses."

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
paradox wrote: Everyone's

paradox wrote:

Everyone's experiences are subjective and those subjective experiences manefest themselves as beliefs. If you had an experience where you thought you smelled the odor of natural gas in your kitchen and you believed that your observation was correct, then you would act upon your belief.

Yes, everyone has subjective experiences, but on questions of the origin of the universe, and the existence of god, subjective experiences are inadequate. Gas leaks in kitchens are uncontroversial, because it is reasonable to believe they occur, so subjective experience is enough to tell us we might be having one. If there is a god, it should be universal, and we should all be able to experience it the same way, so we should all come to agree on god. In other words, it should be objectively present and observable. The problem with subjective experiences is that they are easily distorted or imagined.

paradox wrote:

 Also, I am here to entertain the thought that I may be deluding myself.

Glad to hear it. Or read it, in this case.

paradox wrote:
However, those decisions are not for you to decide just as our subjective experiences may not amount to a reason for anyone else to believe.

I agree. Ultimately, it doesn't matter very much what you believe, and it is your decision. I was objecting to the comments in your post that seemed to indicate that you weren't willing to confront questions that make you uncomfortable, and warning you that if you are upset by certain questions, this forum may upset you.

paradox wrote:
So you've truthfully asked yourself all the hard questions concerning Christianity and aren't trying to hide from the possibility the we are spiritual beings as well as physical?

I've asked myself all the questions I know about religion, as I was once a Christian. I don't claim to know all the questions related to religion, but it has been a really long time since I encountered a truly new one, and I'm willing to entertain them if asked. Mind you, that doesn't mean I'll entertain an argument from ignorance. If there is evidence that we are spiritual beings, I'd love to see it.

paradox wrote:

Again I'll ask you what does the word symbol "Love" mean to you?

Different things at different times and places, and concerning different things. I love my family in a completely different way than I love FreeBSD. It's a positive feeling or opinion. Relevance?

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
paradox wrote: Jesus is

paradox wrote:
Jesus is quoted in John 5:31 of saying "If I {alone} testify about Myself, My testimony is not true."

And yet, a few chapters later, when the Pharisees ask him about this, he says "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go." (John 8:14)

Funny that.

-Triften


paradox
paradox's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The cosmos doesn't always behave the same

True, the Pharisees mocked Jesus in JN 8:14 just like you are with me in my quoting JN 5:31.

 

However Jesus knew that Deuteronomy 17:6 required at least two witnesses fot a truth to be established; cf 19:15. Jesus had plenty of witnesses to testify that He was the son of God.

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
paradox wrote:

paradox wrote:

The point I was making with the video was that science cannot predict the behavior of the cosmos all of the time, thus resurrection is possible behavior.

 

I understand where you're going, but your statement is filled with problems.

 

The first, that "science cannot predict the behavior of the cosmos all of the time". You must add "human" to the beginning of that, and also add "at the present time". The only way a statement like yours can be made is if one is all-knowing. No physicist believes we've found a unified theory, and thus all agree that we are only using models as descriptions of the universe.

 

The second, that because of the first resurrection must be possible, is far too great of a leap for me to handle. That's like saying because a neutron star has been discovered spinning fast enough that, according to the laws of physics, it should be ripped apart but is not, resurrection is possible.

 

Just because science cannot explain everything about everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with god.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: However Jesus knew

Quote:
However Jesus knew that Deuteronomy 17:6 required at least two witnesses fot a truth to be established; cf 19:15. Jesus had plenty of witnesses to testify that He was the son of God.

Like who, exactly?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
paradox wrote: True, the

paradox wrote:

True, the Pharisees mocked Jesus in JN 8:14 just like you are with me in my quoting JN 5:31.

Eh? Are you saying I am agreeing with you?

paradox wrote:

However Jesus knew that Deuteronomy 17:6 required at least two witnesses fot a truth to be established; cf 19:15. Jesus had plenty of witnesses to testify that He was the son of God.

But he doesn't say "we know whence I came," he says "I know whence I came." It says nothing of other people testifying for him.

-Triften


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
paradox wrote: The Bible

paradox wrote:

The Bible teaches us about Christ. “We learn what he did: he preached and taught, drew large crowds, performed miracles. It tells us that he was crucified, that he died, and that he rose from the dead. Some of the teachings most central to Scripture and to the Christian faith tell us of concrete historical events; they therefore tell us of the history and properties of things within the cosmos. Christ died and then rose again; this tells us much about some of the entities within the cosmos. It tells us something about the history, properties, and behavior of his body, for example: namely, that it was dead and then later on alive. It thus tells us that some of the things in the cosmos behaved very differently on this occasion from the way in which they ordinarily behave. The same goes, of course, for the Ascension of Christ, and for the many other miracles reported in Scripture.”---

Alvin Plantinga University of Notre Dame

I believe that the cosmos behaved differently on the occasion of Christ’s death and resurrection, as well as many other “miracles” that are presented in the bible. This belief goes beyond reason and beyond human ability to understand, but that doesn’t mean I have to come to the conclusion that there is no God. It simply means I believe. I can’t prove scientifically in a controlled environment that it happened or that it didn’t happen, I just believe that it is true. John 3:16 says that whoever believes (not reasons) shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Science is just an attempt to understand and there is nothing wrong with that. But science doesn’t understand how things will ALWAYS behave either. For example, watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=414923056147040970&q=what+the+bleep+do+we+know&hl=en

Just because we don’t always understand how things behave, like how Christ was resurrected, doesn’t mean we should come to a quick conclusion that it’s impossible and thus there is no God. We should simply conclude that we don’t understand. Not understanding doesn’t mean we cannot still believe that it is somehow possible. And if we believe that at some point in time, mankind will eventually understand, for example, the mystery presented in the video above, then that is exercising what the Bible defines as faith: “est autem fides sperandorum substantia rerum argumentum non parentum” Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen –Hebrews 11:1 So why not put your faith ability into believing that Christ will give you eternal life?

 

Alright for you. It is your choice TO believe.

I am a man of extreme intellectual integrity. If I were to believe something - it has to be for so much more than to simply pacify my mind's desire to question reality.

I see this story - I see its contemporary and predecessor stories. There is nothing unique or special about Christianity. There is nothing unique or speical about any of them.

Because of this there is no integral justification I can give myself to believe any of them. It makes perfect sense to reguard them all as fable - and nothing more.

But I refuse to sacrafice my integrity simply to pacify my curiosity.

You are different from me in this respect - and this is your choice to do such.