|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
I didn't say it was. I said it makes literature unreliable as historical evidence. Having an agenda in and of itself is not a disqualifier.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's a bad attitude to start with. Some people don't need any evidence at all to be convinced and some people are too eager to grasp at the first straws that might support their desired outcome.
It takes different amounts of evidence to convince different people. Phat writes:
When somebody claims that there "is" historical evidence, the absence of evidence definitely IS significant. ... the absence of evidence is not a precondition towards evidence of absence.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: Of course! That's the essence of free will. Making shit up is the essence of fiction Phat.
You may argue that i'm simply making stuff up...which is a hard one to challenge. Im working on it though! Given that you did actually make it up, there's nothing much to work on is there? I mean, you can't point to any other source can you? You're talking yourself into something.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
ringo writes: Of course it is historical evidence. What you are talking about is its reliability.
A bigger pile of unreliable evidence doesn't make it more reliable. And of course each source was compiled by individuals with their own agenda and the canon was compiled by people with an agenda. I'd say that that adds up to a lot less than "historical evidence". ringo writes: I have agreed that if the resurrection is historical then it happened outside of the laws of known science. Your point is that the laws of science are immutable and as a result resurrection is impossible. That isn't the only way that science repudiates the resurrection. As far as science is concerned, the resurrection is as impossible as the Flood, as impossible as Jesus flying up to heaven by flapping His arms.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Of course it is historical evidence. What you are talking about is its reliability. With you I can agree on this. A robin singing in spring is evidence. Anything can be pulled in as evidence. Reliability is one of the things to consider, of course. The other is relevance. It would take amazing mind contortions to make my robin relevant evidence in this contest. I'd say to Ringo, the bible is evidence. It seems to be the only relevant evidence. It's reliability is on very shaky ground though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: percy writes: You can't it both ways, both historical and faith driven. The resurrection is a core religious belief of Christianity, not history. Of course it can be had both ways. I believe by faith that the resurrection is an historical event. You're talking nonsense. You can believe by faith that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, but that doesn't turn it into a historical event. Faith is the last resort of those with no evidence. Actual historical events leave evidence behind. This shouldn't have to be explained.
percy writes: As you said, this is what you believe on faith. It isn't reality. The laws of science were never suspended. Nothing violating the laws of science has ever been shown to happen. The Gospels say that you are wrong. So what? The gospels (lowercase) are something you accept on faith, not evidence. You said so yourself. Harry Potter says I'm wrong about magic. So does The Lord of the Rings. Again, so what?
Percy writes: Well, yes, of course, in the same way that science can't be used to repudiate or confirm Harry Potter. There's no evidence to confirm or repudiate, plus it violates known laws of science, plus it's obviously religious which places it in the same grabbag of fantastical claims with other religions. So what? One can be right and the others wrong, they can all be right or they can all be wrong. One thing they do agree on and that is that there is a deity. Well, actually, they don't agree about "there is a deity" either. Some religions have multiple deities. All religions are attestations without evidence, and such can be dismissed without evidence.
Percy writes: You can have a favorite religion. Yours happens to be Christianity, others Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judasim or any of a number of others. All their beliefs are based upon faith. None of these religions are historical or factual or scientific when it comes to things like resurrections. If you are talking about miracles,... I am talking about any evidence-free claim, but sure, miracles, too.
I have never claimed that they are scientific but that has nothing to do as to whether or not they are factual or historic. If they have no evidence then they are neither factual nor historical. And if they are scientifically impossible plus just a religious claim, whose contrived nature is well established, then all you've got is faith in miracles. And there's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is making false claims that evidence-based fields like history and science provide any support for faith-based ideas.
Percy writes: You just finished saying that the resurrection being historical has to be accepted on faith, which means you have no objective evidence that the resurrection is historical. Objectively Christianity is a false religion (so are all the others) - it can only be accepted on faith, which is as it should be. All those who march off to objectively prove their religion are on a fool's errand. I'm not trying to prove anything. Sure you are. You're trying to prove the gospels historical, but finding it a tough go for lack of evidence.
I do have objective evidence in the physical writings in the Gospels,... This vague statement isn't going to confuse anyone but you. The gospels (lowercase) contain no objective evidence for their religious claims.
I do however by faith form a subjective view as to their veracity. Yes, exactly. By faith, not by evidence. Subjective, not objective. Religious (with all that entails), not secular. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
...they can all be right ... They disagree so they can not be all right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8561 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Science has little evidence to work within this case ... Uhh, no. The evidence in the science of a resurrection is quite abundant, specific and conclusive. Literally trillions of organisms, billions of them human, testify to the paucity of resurrection. None. The workings of this universe, so well studied, tested, and confirmed, testify to the invalidity of the physics of resurrection claims. You can deny the science and its veto power over such majik but all this does is show the same delusional desperation Faith shows with here flud. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: Of course it is historical evidence. No, it is scripture, with all that entails. Scripture isn't history. (Of course that doesn't mean scripture can't have a historical backdrop, such as being set in real places like Jerusalem or mentioning actual historical personages like Herod the Great or Pontius Pilate.)
What you are talking about is its reliability. We are saying it isn't history, it is scripture. You can no more talk about the reliability of Christian scripture than you can of Norse myths.
I have agreed that if the resurrection is historical then it happened outside of the laws of known science. Your point is that the laws of science are immutable and as a result resurrection is impossible. I don't want to speak for Ringo, but I think our views are fairly similar. That the resurrection (assuming you believe Jesus was really dead for three days and then came back to life, and not that he wasn't really dead but the apostles just thought he was) violates science just makes it more clear that it is religion, whose strong tendency toward fantastical claims we understand very well. You'd like to believe that the nature of religion doesn't hold for the religion that you prefer, that unlike other religions Christianity's claims are actually true, nay, even historical. That you have to pick among the claims for what you think true and what you think not belies this. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: There is evidence left behind. The NT. Let's look at Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. It only happened once. The only evidence is what we have written. All we have are written accounts and subjectively we can accept or reject the accounts. You're talking nonsense. You can believe by faith that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, but that doesn't turn it into a historical event. Faith is the last resort of those with no evidence. Actual historical events leave evidence behind. This shouldn't have to be explained. As I said to ringo, the real argument is not the fact that the Gospels are evidence but how reliable we consider the evidence.
Percy writes: We both keep repeating what we have already said. The Gospels are evidence and I accept the veracity of the accounts of the resurrection by faith.
So what? The gospels (lowercase) are something you accept on faith, not evidence. Percy writes: Science provides no support. However the fact that the early church rose in circumstances that would strongly dictate against it without the resurrection, is historical evidence.
What is wrong is making false claims that evidence-based fields like history and science provide any support for faith-based ideas. Percy writes: Why keep using the word "prove". I have stated categorically several times that there is no proof, and that it can't be proven. I don't think I can be any clearer.
Sure you are. You're trying to prove the gospels historical, but finding it a tough go for lack of evidence. Percy writes: I agree. However we do objectively know that the Gospels exist. Two of them clearly state that they were compiled in order to provide an account of the facts. We know that objectively. We subjectively form our own conclusions about their veracity and by faith, not knowledge, we accept our conclusions. The gospels (lowercase) contain no objective evidence for their religious claims.Cheers 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 |
NosyNed writes: You're right of course. I think though in comparing the texts of various religions I suggest that it is better to start with what they agree about. I said to Percy that they all have a deity and Percy correctly pointed out that some have multiple deities. I would add of course that Buddhism isn't really theistic but it doesn't reject theism either. They disagree so they can not be all right. As I said earlier they all, with again the possible exception of Buddhism, accept a divine power and they all include the "Golden Rule'. Those are fundamental theistic beliefs and are even held in common with secular beliefs. I would add though, that secular acceptance of the Golden Rule arose from the period when the whole world was theistic. Also I would say that as a Christian I should be open to hearing what people of other faiths have to say, and even pay attention to the incessant rantings of the atheistic crowd. 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 |
Percy writes: First off I firmly believe that Jesus was dead. I don't believe that He came back to life as we know it. I believe that the resurrected Jesus was experienced in a body that bridged our universe and God's universe. I don't want to speak for Ringo, but I think our views are fairly similar. That the resurrection (assuming you believe Jesus was really dead for three days and then came back to life, and not that he wasn't really dead but the apostles just thought he was) violates science just makes it more clear that it is religion, whose strong tendency toward fantastical claims we understand very well. You'd like to believe that the nature of religion doesn't hold for the religion that you prefer, that unlike other religions Christianity's claims are actually true, nay, even historical. That you have to pick among the claims for what you think true and what you think not belies this. I haven't commented on the claims of other religions and I have already stated that there are things that are consistent. If we read the first part of the Book of Buddha we find essentially the same social message proclaimed by Jesus. I am quite prepared to accept that it was a revelation from God. I have put a lot of time into understanding the concept of resurrection in its historical Jewish context. I haven't put that same time into other religious claims so I won't offer an opinion one way or the other. The claims of the miraculous in other religions, whether historical or not, has nothing to do with the claim of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NosyNed writes: I'd say to Ringo, the bible is evidence. Of its religious claims? Given the clear nature of religion? If the Bible is evidence of Christianity's religious views then wouldn't any writing be evidence, including obvious fiction? We went down the "everything is evidence" path in another thread. That way lies madness, in the sense that the discussion is endless and leads nowhere. If we learned anything from that thread it's that evidence is specific. You can't just say you've have evidence the way GDR keeps saying, "The gospels are evidence." Just what are they specifically evidence of, and what is that evidence. Just saying Harry Potter is evidence or Lysistrata is evidence is meaningless. They might contain evidence, like Harry Potter containing evidence that London is a real place or Lysistrata having evidence that the Peloponnesian war actually occurred, but just saying they're evidence is an empty claim. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8561 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I believe that the resurrected Jesus was experienced in a body that bridged our universe and God's universe. Well, that's new. At lease to me. Again, this looks and smells a lot like one of Faith's made-up processes when the evidence against her flud gets too deep. Now you can escape the impediment reality puts on the viability of resurrection by claiming Jesus was not resurrected as a human but as a ghost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes:
I did not say as a ghost. The resurrected Jesus was physical. He ate fish and could be touched. However, He also was different in a variety of ways. The message is that it was a renewed physicality. Well, that's new. At lease to me.Again, this looks and smells a lot like one of Faith's made-up processes when the evidence against her flud gets too deep. Now you can escape the impediment reality puts on the viability of resurrection by claiming Jesus was not resurrected as a human but as a ghost. To go back we have to remember that Jesus was a Jew immersed in Jewish culture. If the Jews wanted to be forgiven their misdoings they went to the Temple, gave sacrifices and could be forgiven. The Temple, and particularly the Holy of Holies was God’s place on Earth. It was the point in our space and time that God resided. It was where God’s world connected or intersected with our world. That was the Jewish belief. Jesus came along as a counter-Temple movement. He simply forgave sin and made statements that He desired mercy and not sacrifice. He is saying that the place where God’s world, (I have just updated it a bit by using universe instead of world), connected or intersected or world or universe was in Him, and that with the establishment of the Kingdom that the point of intersection between God’s universe and our own is in the hearts and minds of those that love the message of love of God as embodied by Jesus. Ultimately then the message is that Jesus was the first born of the new creation or the renewal of all things. Paul puts it this way in Ephesians 1. quote: 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024