|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
An argument often sounds good until you hear the other side. I watched Richard carrier. His argument is one of the best that your side has. Most Christians wouldn't do that. In any case, I suspect a spiritual war. Carrier is under the influence of some pretty strong demons. Ive had subjective experience regarding those. By the way, how can you not be an atheist if you believe that all gods are fiction?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Show me a good argument and I'll show you a counter-argument. In any case, the counter arguments are at this time unconvincing. Show me a good one.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You're getting pretty desperate. That "demon" rubbish just weakens your case for God.
Carrier is under the influence of some pretty strong demons. Phat writes:
I haven't even heard of all gods. There could possibly be one that I don' t know about. By the way, how can you not be an atheist if you believe that all gods are fiction?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
OK, but you cant watch videos so digging one up will require some research. off the cuff, I would say that A Creator makes more sense to me at least than an eternally expanding/contracting universe. I will say that most believers have a need for God (once they become believers) that unbelievers don't. I dont see why the concept of God is so odd. Where i go wrong is when I expect favor from Him. Life isnt fair and I hate that.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's not an argument; it's just an opinion. off the cuff, I would say that A Creator makes more sense to me at least than an eternally expanding/contracting universe. And you're just adding an entity in opposition to Occam's Razor. You might as well say that a diesel engine powered by angels pushing up and down on the pistons "makes nore sense to you".And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I doubt you will ever find your evidence. I don't need any more. Perhaps some of us have a propensity to believe and some of us have a propensity to demand evidence. The problem is, if you did have evidence, it would take away your responsibility to believe. You would simply be handed a fact.
The whole idea is to take that leap of faith...but you for some reason mistrust the God of the book. I can see why, and I don't fault you for it or think I'm right or think im any better off.... but I think you are proud that you logically decided not to believe. In my opinion, it had to do more with the hypocrisy within the church than it did with you waiting at the altar forever for evidence. I realize that I may have trouble finding an argument worthy of you to refute, but I also suspect that you would refute any and all that were given to you. I see many problems with many beliefs and many believers....myself included. I commend you publically for what you say and do regarding following the message. I dont believe that humans are basically good, however. I believe that we need God. You will argue that so far there are no god candidates worthy of consideration. At that point, I gotta concede. I hae things to do today that are useful for others as well as myself. We can get back to this stuff later if you are around. I hope that you are doing well and that you got your back taxes caught up. I dont want to see you holding a sign on my way to work. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
We all have a propensity for evidence. Believers just choose to park their brains at the door in certain circumstances.
Perhaps some of us have a propensity to believe and some of us have a propensity to demand evidence. Phat writes:
That's a copout. "Responsibility to believe" is gibberish.
The problem is, if you did have evidence, it would take away your responsibility to believe. Phat writes:
I didn't "decide not to believe". I just learned that the belief was false, like you learned that the belief in Santa Claus was false. ... but I think you are proud that you logically decided not to believe.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: No Percy. It is difficult because I believe that that the resurrection was an historical event. You believe that it wasn’t. The onus then is on me to show that it is historical but we both know that I have no proof and that the only evidence I have is for what is in the Gospels and the Gospels in their historical context, and for the fact that the early Christian church came into existence even after the shameful death of its leader. Put another way, you find discussion difficult with those who don't already accept your claims.You reject that evidence and essentially claim that it didn’t happen because we know it’s impossible and so there has to be some other explanation. That is why I find the discussion difficult. Percy writes: Of course. If something is written with the intent that it be understood to tell a truth, whether it be historical or metaphoric, it is evidence. We make up our own minds in each case.
If the NT is evidence then so are the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Epic of Gigamesh.Percy writes: We sure have and you don’t accept the Gospels and the rise of the early church as evidence. That’s nonsense. I’m not saying that it is conclusive, but it is evidence.
You've already been over this ground, the answer hasn't changed, yet you keep saying it without any empirical support.Percy writes: And you reject the possibility of miracles so of course there is no middle ground.
You're not acting like you want a middle ground. It's more like you have preconditions for what others must first accept. And if they don't accept your preconditions, like that miracles are possible, then they're being unreasonable.Percy writes: I’ll give you that. Rebuild would not be the right term. I should say restore the Temple. The Temple was essentially in the hands of the Roman puppets the Herodians, which essentially meant that it was controlled by the Romans. They wanted it restored as had been done in the Hasmonean era
Liberate them from the Romans, sure, but rebuild the Temple? Before it was destroyed? Not likely.Percy writes: In Matthew 20 the mother of James and John asks Jesus if her sons can sit on His right and left when he commands the kingdom. In Mark 10 James and John come to Him directly with the same request. In Acts 1 after the resurrection they still are asking when Jesus will restore the kingdom to Israel. You're again repeating the story of the dunderheaded apostles, and again without substantiation. It couldn't possibly be the case that you believe repeating something enough times makes it true, so why are you doing this? Anyway, it's not the story of the gospels.We can also look at the other messianic movements which all involved overthrowing Roman rule. It was what a messiah was expected to do, however it was accomplished and usually militarily. Apparently Peter was still carrying a sword at the time of Jesus’ arrest. I don’t have a definite opinion on whether Peter believed it would by military means or not. Percy writes:
Here is a quote from the wiki site that you linked. You're going over old ground again, repeating a previous and already rebutted claim. The usage in Daniel and the NT differ. From the Son of man (Christianity):quote:In the same wiki article another view expressed is that it is a phrase just as it sounds as indicating that one is human. It is partly correct. In Daniel 7 it talks about one LIKE a son of man. In the Gospels though Jesus refers to Himself as THE son of man. He is clearly using that term in reference to Daniel 7. I agree that there isn’t total agreement Here is another quote from the same link. quote:In all of those understandings of Jesus’ use of the term it is still consistent with the understanding that He is referring to Daniel 7. Fairy tales I believe are true. We both know I don’t have proof. You either believe the Gospels that the. Percy writes: I gave you evidence but you reject it as evidence. The Gospel accounts are evidence. Looking at the historical context including other messianic movements and the rise of the Christian church is evidence which can reject or accept. You may consider it nothing, but it is evidence.
I didn't ask for proof. I asked for evidence. If all you got is, "You either believe or you don't," then you got nothin'.Percy writes: It shows that God is validating Jesus’ life and message. It shows us that death, which is the worst that evil can do to us, is not the final word. It establishes life in God’s recreated world. It shows us that in the end there is justice. Say what? If it's all the same God no matter what religion, then of what possible difference could a resurrection make?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Phat writes: I am coming to the conclusion that no matter what evidence is available, belief comes down to a basic choice and decision. I can see that for some, confirming information would help...but then it would be an external source making their decision for them. There is no convincing.Its like Yoda said: There is no try. Do or Do Not. I agree. Christianity is many things to the many people who call themselves Christian. At its core is the message that our hearts and lives should be in harmony with "The Golden Rule". If that is all it is to any individual, then they are following the precise nature of what God asks of us in my signature, whether they be Christian, any other faith or atheistic. However, God has given us inquisitive minds and so we want to know more, so theology was born. What was essentially simple has now become complex. Just the same, it is an extremely interesting study. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: The progressive revelation in the field of physics has led us to understand the world that is far weirder than we could ever have imagined,Tangle writes: Who knows where science will go in the future. It's been the better part of a century since the study of QM began. We've only just started trying to work this stuff out - just a few generations of scientific effort. There's an underlying assumption of science that we can eventually understand everything; I'm not at all convinced. I certainly never will, the physics went way past me be I was born. There are very few people that understand the physics as we know it today. That leaves billions that can't and never will. The human brain must have limits, there's no intrinsic reason why we *should* get to the bottom of it. I wish I was one of the ones that has something of a grasp of it. I miss cavediver and son guko.
GDR writes: and in fact far weirder than the idea that Jesus after death was resurrected.Tangle writes: It seems that by and large there are few simple answers in the study of theology or science. At least with science you have mathematics and experimentation which can repeated and verified. That's not weird or difficult, it's just a story. We have an infinite supply of them. We need to explain things; we used to do it through fantasy and storytelling, we now try to work it out objectively. It's a far better method but it will never satisfy those that need simple answers. With Christianity we could experiment by having people and nations live by the Golden Rule, but so far it hasn't been tried. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
GDR writes: With Christianity we could experiment by having people and nations live by the Golden Rule, but so far it hasn't been tried. Our laws are roughly that. It roughly works. But it's not in our nature to be wholly good, evolution saw to that. So we'll always have crime and disease; just hopefully less of it as our secular institutions continue to make progress. Religion had its turn; it failed badly.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: Percy,to GDR writes: I asked for evidence. If all you got is, "You either believe or you don't," then you got nothin'. I thought Craig Parsons videos were well done. I shared them with ICANT in our GD thread. watch one and tell me what you think. I almost never watch videos - information flow is too slow and diffuse. I'd have to have an awfully good reason to watch a video. I don't mind watching short stuff, or when somebody can point to the important (small) portion of a video. Also, never heard of Craig Parsons. Clearly you are strongly driven to believe in the Christian God, but many are strongly driven to believe in all sorts of things, including the opposite of the Christian God. The mere fact of someone's belief is not some sort of argument or evidence that others should believe, too. Besides, it seems to me that your God makes you unhappy and treats you poorly, hardly an argument others will find convincing. It instead argues that your belief is irrational. My belief in God is equally irrational, but at least I know it. Plus, if he's intervened in my life at all then He's a hell of a nice guy, a far stronger argument for my God than for yours. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
GDR writes: Percy writes: Put another way, you find discussion difficult with those who don't already accept your claims. No Percy. It is difficult because I believe that that the resurrection was an historical event. You believe that it wasn’t. The onus then is on me to show that it is historical but we both know that I have no proof... You keep using the word proof, and I keep nudging you away from it, instead encouraging use of the word evidence. When you say proof do you mean evidence? I'll make that assumption from here on out.
...and that the only evidence I have is for what is in the Gospels and the Gospels in their historical context,... The gospels aren't evidence. They're religious myths. When you Christians get it squared away with all the other religions which one's myths are actually true you let us know.
...and for the fact that the early Christian church came into existence even after the shameful death of its leader. How many times are you going to repeat the same argument and ignore the rebuttal? It's still a case of, "Meh on your crucifixion, we've got a resurrection."
You reject that evidence... What evidence?
...and essentially claim that it didn’t happen because we know it’s impossible... I don't claim that it all didn't happen and that it's all impossible. I only claim that the impossible parts absolutely didn't happen.
...and so there has to be some other explanation. For you to say this means you haven't been listening. I have not been saying things like, "Jesus couldn't possibly have actually walked on water, so there has to be some other explanation for him appearing to have walked on water." I haven't been saying anything like that at all. What I've been saying is that it's all made up. Jesus isn't real. He never walked on water. He never fed five thousand with a few baskets of food. He never raised anyone from the dead. He never made the blind see. He was never crucified. He was never resurrected. It's all just stories and mythology that arose around the main character in Paul's invented religion.
That is why I find the discussion difficult. The reasons you cite for finding the discussion difficult have nothing to do with anything I've actually said.
Percy writes: If the NT is evidence then so are the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Epic of Gigamesh. Of course. If something is written with the intent that it be understood to tell a truth, whether it be historical or metaphoric, it is evidence. We make up our own minds in each case. If you really believe that then why do you care so much that I've made up my mind differently from you. Or are you so desperate to discuss theology that you'll attempt it with someone who doesn't merely have a different slant on things but who rejects all the world's religions?
Percy writes: You've already been over this ground, the answer hasn't changed, yet you keep saying it without any empirical support. We sure have and you don’t accept the Gospels and the rise of the early church as evidence. That’s nonsense. What is nonsense is that you think the gospels (why do you keep capitalizing "gospels", by the way) and the rise of the early church are evidence. If the rise of the early Christian church is evidence then the early stages of any religion is evidence. All religions had their early stages, and all religions can't be true.
I’m not saying that it is conclusive, but it is evidence. It isn't evidence. That the evidence of all the world's religions is highly contradictory tells us that it is all the fabrication of man's imagination.
Percy writes: You're not acting like you want a middle ground. It's more like you have preconditions for what others must first accept. And if they don't accept your preconditions, like that miracles are possible, then they're being unreasonable. And you reject the possibility of miracles so of course there is no middle ground. Don't be such a rube. You have no evidence of miracles yet you accept them anyway, plus you reject the miracles of religions that go against your own religious beliefs, such as the revelations of Maroni to Joseph Smith. If anyone has evidence of miracles then it is a very well kept secret, and there is a tremendous amount of miraculous flim-flam surrounding religions what with all the faith healers and the like. Why do you believe people 2000 years ago were more astute than the highly gullible people of today? How does that make any sense?
Percy writes: You're again repeating the story of the dunderheaded apostles, and again without substantiation. It couldn't possibly be the case that you believe repeating something enough times makes it true, so why are you doing this? Anyway, it's not the story of the gospels. In Matthew 20 the mother of James and John asks Jesus if her sons can sit on His right and left when he commands the kingdom. You're mischaracterizing Matthew 20:21. There is no "when" in Zebedee's wife's request. Jesus's kingdom is the kingdom of heaven, and she asks if her sons can sit by Jesus's side in his kingdom.
In Mark 10 James and John come to Him directly with the same request. In Acts 1 after the resurrection they still are asking when Jesus will restore the kingdom to Israel. You're repeating the same mistake.
We can also look at the other messianic movements which all involved overthrowing Roman rule. It was what a messiah was expected to do, however it was accomplished and usually militarily. I think you're confusing Jewish and Christian concepts of messiahship. Jesus introduced the Christian version, a saver of souls. He was pretty clear about it, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men," and all that.
Apparently Peter was still carrying a sword at the time of Jesus’ arrest. I don’t have a definite opinion on whether Peter believed it would be by military means or not. That's about the only hint (and it's the merest of hints) of anything military in Jesus's ministry, including the apostles.
Percy writes: You're going over old ground again, repeating a previous and already rebutted claim. The usage in Daniel and the NT differ. From the Son of man (Christianity): Here is a quote from the wiki site that you linked. Wow, you really do like discussing theology. It is enough for me that "after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars." I'm not interested in getting into a debate on a subject that remains unsettled after 150 years. If for you it is settled then good for you.
Percy writes: I didn't ask for proof. I asked for evidence. If all you got is, "You either believe or you don't," then you got nothin'. I gave you evidence but you reject it as evidence. Hearsay, myths and stories of miracles are not evidence. You are the one who said, "You either believe or you don't." That is not what one says when one has evidence.
The Gospel accounts are evidence. When one has no evidence but evidence is required then one points to whatever is at hand and calls it evidence.
Looking at the historical context including other messianic movements and the rise of the Christian church is evidence which can reject or accept. You may consider it nothing, but it is evidence. You already said this in this post, and I already answered. This is still wrong for the reasons I gave above.
Percy writes: Say what? If it's all the same God no matter what religion, then of what possible difference could a resurrection make? It shows that God is validating Jesus’ life and message. It shows us that death, which is the worst that evil can do to us, is not the final word. It establishes life in God’s recreated world. It shows us that in the end there is justice. This makes no sense. If it's all the same God no matter what religion, including religions where Jesus plays no role, then of what possible difference could a resurrection make? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I am not saying that this proves anything about Christianity, but it does prove that you can be a particularly brilliant individual and be a Christian. I think you and Collins and Polkinghorne were all dropped on your heads real hard into the baptismal bowl. All three of you (should) know that without the most extraordinary quality/quantity of evidence anything so extraordinarily in violation of physics at the most basic level as is religion cannot be said to exist; that "DNA and evolutionary biology as God’s fingerprints in our world," is an article of faith with no meaning let alone any reality. Somehow, someway, the religious meme, an insidious malicious disease-infested worm, got into the brains of some very intelligent people, probably at a very early age, and proceeded to slowly eat the synapses. You're a zombie: some brain parts are dead but still able to do calculus.
Make a change in a particle here and somehow information passed at infinite speed to a paired particle light years away and makes a change to that particle. Entanglement is a real head scratcher. We don't (yet) understand what is actually happening here. But one idea we can discount is that Jesus is putting the information into his side-saddle then is riding his superluminal donkey clear across the universe to deliver the intrinsic spin to the other particle. Yet, people tend to treat other areas of our ignorance in a similar religious fashion. Three millennia ago the big ignorance was where did we come from. Well ... god did it, obviously. That is just so simple and clear a thought. It provides a strong emotional satisfaction. We have an answer that we really don't need to analyse especially since analysis is not possible (so some may think).
In the end, everything appears to be nothing. Well, energy, in whatever form it may take, is not "nothing." Matter appears to be one of many manifestations of energy, whatever that turns out to be.
It seems to me that the one thing that is fundamental is consciousness that causes us to perceive a particular form of reality. Except we already know that consciousness is an emergent property of complex biochemistry. It is not fundamental in a physics sense to anything.
I mentioned earlier that I see the narrative in the Bible that describes a progressive revelation in our understanding of the nature of God. I contend that we continue to learn although that progression is certainly not linear. All ideas, even wrong ones, go through such transitions. God was a big thing in that culture. Being fictitious it is not hard to imagine different people had different ideas and they argued, and warred, over this evolution of traits. Remember that these books of yours are only the very few from among hundreds. This bible of yours is just the select few of the surviving tomes accepted by the political powers of the time. And, please, don't try to tell me this process was divinely inspired.
I realize that my specific belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ sounds strange to you, Percy and others. No, not strange. Ludicrously laughable might be a better fit. We do not know everything. Truth is we hardly know anything compared to what there is still left to get known but what we do know we know very very well indeed.
The progressive revelation in the field of physics has led us to understand the world that is far weirder than we could ever have imagined, and in fact far weirder than the idea that Jesus after death was resurrected. Mention Heisenberg. Mention entropy. Mention QFT. In this universe there can be no defiance of these things. The number and state of the particles, the diffusion of the photons involved, the increase in entropy, cannot be reversed for a dead human brain, let alone reverse the breakdown of metabolic pathways of a three-day-dead putrefying body. I know, I know, we do not know everything and, besides, god can do anything. So people have ignorance in which to invest their hopes. But when it comes to the most basic operations of the stuff and glue of this universe, which we know about as well as any one of ICANT's absolute truths can possibly be, this resurrection thing is a physical (physics-cal) impossibility. I'm afraid there is no way around these items. Not without a lot of pure majik of a kind never ever seen anywhere in anything else in this universe ... ever ... and, frankly, Heisenberg and entropy deny even that.
It seems that we are an emergent part of a greater reality. Sure, and ignorance provides a license to invent. That doesn't mean we are allowed to violate the sacred rules, the beatification of Heisenberg, the veneration of entropy.
Why then is it so hard to believe that there is another dimension/universe that Jesus, somewhat particle like, could physically move from another dimension to our own and back again. Does that really sound any stranger than the quantum world? Ya. That's pretty silly. Superluminal interdimensional donkey. You do know that this multidimensional stuff is speculation, right? It is a math hack in models that have yet to show any great viability; intriguing ideas that could help explain a few nagging issues but, so far, nothing of any scientific substance or predictive value. There are no other dimensions there to "believe" in. So believing that Jesus, somewhat particle like, could physically move from another dimension to our own and back again, is a rather silly proposal to make at this point in our experience. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: I had to comment, as I see poor Greg getting evidentially put in his place. Many years ago I had a definite subjective experience. It was not based on ignorance...rather...it was based on my fully functioning 5 senses at the time....also experienced jointly with 3 friends. I have told it here at EvC before but will retell it again on request. It involved multiple voices..clearly audible..coming from a man seemingly possessed and/or in a trance. I know, I know, we do not know everything and, besides, god can do anything. So people have ignorance in which to invest their hopes. But when it comes to the most basic operations of the stuff and glue of this universe, which we know about as well as any one of ICANT's absolute truths can possibly be, this resurrection thing is a physical (physics-cal) impossibility.I'm afraid there is no way around these items. Not without a lot of pure Majik of a kind never ever seen anywhere in anything else in this universe ... ever, and, frankly, Heisenberg and entropy deny even that.(...) ignorance provides a license to invent. That doesn't mean we are allowed to violate the sacred rules, the beatification of Heisenberg, the veneration of entropy. Now granted, we all were young converts who were relatively newly hyped on a belief in Jesus Christ, His Spirit, and the realm of spiritual warfare described for us through books, other subjective experiences, and witness of similar phenom which we never had an opportunity to question. What stuck in my mind, after all of these years, is the simple fact that we all clearly heard the multiple voices, no trickery was involved or even possible given our surroundings, and we all to this day remember the same sequence of events. You argue that given what is known about physics, a resurrection is ruled out because such things do not happen. I would agree. Several audible voices coming out of a man in a trance also do not happen...certainly not in my own living room away from a place where such events could be staged. GDR argues with Percy that miracles can happen...whereas Percy logically concludes that they cannot...providing a logical argument why not. Were I to take that position, I would attempt in any and every way to challenge my own experience and attempt to falsify it in some way. Perhaps if all believers were subjected to such a scientific falsification method, a reasonable doubt could be planted in everyone's head. In conclusion, my basic point is that subjective experience is allowed to question any and all sacred rules in pursuit of truth. Throughout antiquity, many witnesses would agree. this resurrection thing is a physical (physics-cal) impossibility. Which is why so much of the validity of the power of Christianity hinges on that one event. Were it ever proven that Jesus was simply a great man and nothing more, such a message would not resonate with me in regards to my knowing God any better. I would be in the camp that says that they were all made up embellished stories. Santa Claus was a lovely belief until I caught my Mother forging his signature on a gift. it was a brief letdown, but I brightened up knowing that she had taken his place. I have been a believer in a Risen Christ for 25 years. ringo has been trying to convince me that He is likely a myth and that humans are charged to take His place. Dr.Michio Kaku preaches the reality of physics and what creations have sprung from it. But as GDR says, or maybe it was Percy...that belief can be irrational. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024