(Moving discussion with Larry from Danny's thread to its own topic)
I contend that belief in the christian god is irrational and unreasonable. Larry A. disagrees. Larry states belief in god is a philisophical question. It is actually a factual question. Does the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob exist or not. The god of the bible supposedly created the universe and everything within it. Yet we can easily test a great many biblical claims about reality and see that the bible is factually incorrect. The origin of this planet and the sun and stars and plants and animals and people are all radically different from the bible's erroneous claims. Rain and thunder and earthquakes and disease and floods and astronomical events are all mistakenly described in the bible. God is said to be a creator, yet there is no good reason to believe that any creator is necessary.
Larry A, you're 70 years old, speak well, clearly posses a fair degree of intelligence, and are willing to think through deeper issues. Why do you believe there is any factual basis to a story so riddled with error and obvious falsehoods?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Truett: Let's do some history. Six centuries ago discussing the existence of god was impossible, try it to take you to the bonfire, indeed, was created a whole pseudo philosophy around, theology. In the 50's the discussion was about how to deny the existence of a creator of the universe, it was not about theology, it was about that, if evolution happened, it was because god pushed it. Today none of these arguments are necessary, because we know that god isn't necessary in the equation of creation of the universe, galaxies, solar system, earth, life, mammals, or humans. At this point it's no longer a theological or philosophical discussion, it's about science...
https://youtu.be/VuyYGVDCdN0
... but, if anyone wants to reduce it to a philosophical, non-theological, philosophical discussion, please try it with Nietzsche when says "God is dead".
You have all the reason, belief in god is irrational and unreasonable, not only in the christian god, in any god, or gods, anyone with a minimum of capacity to think for him/herself can understand what one of today's most preclear minds explains in the video I've linked.
Reason is what was elicited to advance the religious propaganda mechanisms in the first place so let's consider reason a poor choice of a defense against anything man might debate.
Rationale is also an elusive thing that is a construct of the human condition to manipulate, selectively and relatively, to the lofty heights of ego-centric notions of truth so let's not appeal to that either.
I could go on and on slicing and dicing the aspects of logic one might bring to bear on both sides of the debate until we are left with the one and only human propensity for psychic invention - the imagination.
Neither side can deny its use in the glaring absence of fact.
Imagination is what created the god, is what ascribed to him the creator of all things human and beyond, and the only place victories and glorious things can occur.
Larry need not defend his imagination to me. It's his alone to enjoy and not within my privilege to manipulate. If religious doctrines and their preachers taught that I might be counted in their numbers.
@Pitar: What does "Neither side can deny its use in the glaring absence of fact" mean? Yes, god was invented by the imagination of the human being, and we know it, I have a niece who had an imaginary friend, and for that friend to disappear I just had to reason with her, Are you saying that Larry is stupider than my ten-year-old niece?
You know, Larry knows, the Pope knows that to the belief that god exists today only has faith, well, faith and a big mountain of lies, garbage and ignorance, no imagination, and the reality is that the human being doesn't need faith anymore, he has science... oh, and my niece too.
Pitar,
HI,
You wrote:
"Larry need not defend his imagination to me. It's his alone to enjoy and not within my privilege to manipulate. If religious doctrines and their preachers taught that I might be counted in their numbers".
Madison would agree with you.
Look up 'Memorial and Remonstrance" unless you are already familiar with it. Your sentiment is a basis for our religious freedom.
As a matter of American history this sentiment was proposed by ( in the main ) Christians and argued to other Christians - it took time and persuasion - but they did eventually agree to it - so the debate centering around the "Memorial and Remonstrance" shows.
This is, of course thinking that was helped by the Enlightenment - some of those philosophers were atheists.
I guess its a case of Christians learning from both their own history and also from atheist philosophers.
But these streams joined and gave us this precious gift.
Larry
Hi all,
First I would like to thank the moderators for starting this thread and allowing me to post here.
That is very gracious of them.
I can't answer all of the above posts at one sitting - but I will try to do what I can.
Truitt writes in part;
"Larry A, you're 70 years old, speak well, clearly posses a fair degree of intelligence, and are willing to think through deeper issues. Why do you believe there is any factual basis to a story so riddled with error and obvious falsehoods?"
The short answer is I don't believe the opening chapters of Genesis should be taken as matter of fact science. That I don't believe that would prevent me from being welcome in many churches. That is a sad fact. I wish more believers would be willing to wrestle
with their biases on that.
What I do believe about those chapters is that they give me theological truth - that there is only One God. the Egyptians worshipped everything else mentioned there and the story plainly means they are not gods.
Second I believe the chapters give me philosophical truth -
Christianity is about having a relationship with God - so yes it is about facts. Either God exists or God does not exist. That is independent of our different views. We all have our own opinions but ultimately we will all be proven either right or wrong.
So it seems we agree on that..
But we form our opinions by some means - either through personal experience or through reading something or through someone's influence , discussion ect. and so the way we arrive or support our opinions seems to fall under the term philosophy.
BTW I quit school at age 15 - never went back to the classroom except for a trade school and a few random college courses. I finished high school when I was 17 and in the Marines via GED test. I never needed a diploma until the late 90s when I wanted to attend a college and got that by asking the state for it.
But I did well and found time to read at my job - good job - but no one cared if I read - so I had that benefit.
So back to my beliefs.
I think those chapters were important because while they are not to be taken as science they were important for the development of modern systematic science because they show that all these different things are just that - things - not gods and so they can be studied not worshipped. they are properly to be understood as objects of study not of worship.
And they show us that man himself is a supernatural object. God breathed into him the breath of life. I understand that to mean that man shares in God's supernatural nature. That man was created to be able to know and to discover.
I understand that some philosophers think that things cannot account for themselves - cannot explain themselves intellectually.
But man is a part of the universe - are physically composed of the same chemical elements as make up the rest of the universe.
But we have the capacity to reason, to imagine and the capacity to use our senses and our abilities to know and to be creative in our own ways.
Also that we are gifted with a will and with the freedom to willfully decide what to do with that freedom.
So I have thought about the creation stories a lot and find a lot there - but not science - the chapters should not be taken as a science textbook. On the other hand we are encouraged to do science and the belief that we can know the world around us to discover truths and principles was an encouragement to modern science and the pioneers of science.
Yes man is very imaginative - scientists very much so - and so are we all.
So we need checks and balances and the ability to communicate with each other for that reason. So I understand the Tower of Babel story as saying that the scientific method - the sharing of thinking and putting it out there for critical examination - is valid and leads to the discovery of truth.
A part of all of this is that God is a God of order and man is gifted with ability such that there is a good fit or correspondence between what we think and reason and with what actually exists "out there".
I am not a Christian because I thought all of this out but because I had a sense of the supernatural being with me when I was young - in combat, for instance - I was an infantryman in Vietnam - and had many experiences
But I think Christian belief accounts for the fact that we can do science quite well and those creations stories lay the groundwork for that philosophical accounting.
Do you think I should find any of this irrational?
BTW I have no doubt that I am conversing with intelligent and well read people here.
Larry
So one of your comments was you don't believe that parts of the book are true and you pointed to silly genesis stories. So Larry, how do you differentiate between the parts of the book written and inspired by a god that are true / accurate and parts of the book that were ''inspired by the holy spirit'' and yet somehow are nonsense? I think the answer is you invent your own version of the holy babble that includes what you personally believe is and is not information you think is right and good and likely god inspired. And the christian next to you has her own beliefs.
It seems to me that you don't necessarily care about the truth. You accept that some of the babble is the word of a god and some is not... but the problem is that you have no good or valid way to differentiate between the true and correct and the bullshit... but you're prepared to dedicate your life to this old book and its tenets.
Would you agree that the all powerful creator of the universe could have done a way better job and the bible would contain things so profound that no one reading it would ever doubt that a god wrote it.
I think the Bible is a library that contains different kinds of literature. Some of it uses different literary devices to make different
points and inform our thinking in different ways. Modern people can still learn the same ancient truths but should read the literature
(interpret it ) in ways that make sense to modern people.
But I also use commentaries - I am actually pretty conservative in my thinking - so I like conservative ones - but also some that are not so conservative.
For instance there is this little snippet:
I. The Creation of the World and the Beginnings of Humankind (1:1–11:32)
The opening chapters of Genesis describe God's continuing commitment to sustain and bless God's good creation and its inhabitants, including all human beings. God does so in spite of human disobedience and wrongdoing that leads to broken relationships between humans and God (Gen 3), humans and one another (Gen 4; 6), and also humans and non- human creation (3:15, 17–19; 9:1–5). The stories of Gen 1–11 contain elements that are mythic in character and not part of our normal human experience:a talking snake (3:1), human lifetimes that last nearly a thousand years (5:5), divine beings called "sons of God" who come to earth and procreate with humans (6:1– 4), a catastrophic worldwide flood (7:17–24), and a time when all people of the world spoke only one language (11:1). Although some of these elements may seem strange and otherworldly, the stories of Gen 1–11 use these and other elements to explore profound and enduring truths about reality and the interactions of God, humans, and the world.
I hope you are not going to take me to task for being an independent thinker - I wouldn't have expected that from people on this site.
Larry
Expectations are simply invitations to be surprised, Larry.......
Absolute bullshit Larry A. Nothing in the bible is based on facts. Or there are SOME facts sprinkled in to give the illusion of truth, geological references and things like that. That is a well-practiced tactic to gain overall credit of something that is totally false. The NAZIs used it and the conservatives use it.
All you or any fucking god believer has to do is PROVE your fucking god with CREDIBLE evidence. Don't proselytize, don't reference the bible, don't give personal testimony or hearsay evidence. Produce facts that can be verified. I am so fucking tired of you so-called scholars posting BULLSHIT and calling it fact. For example, the tower of babble has nothing to do with science. It is a primitive story that crudely and falsely explains why there are different languages. So don't hand me that crap.
Science is FACTUAL. You can't justify religion as being "philosophical".
I could have a philosophy that says that a billion mile invisible cow controls and made everything. That isn't a philosophy, it's just made up rubbish and so is your fucking god.
You want "checks and balances"? Well check this out! Produce facts instead of waxing lies and justifications. Don't apologize for your god, PROVE that it exists!
Mykcob4, Master of the Verbal Artillery Barrage: Mustard Gas Variety.
I don't think it is possible to prove that God exists - or that God does not exist. This is true in part because people will assign different standards - their own - to any arguments or evidences that might be provided.
But I accept the same kind of evidences that would be or could be entered in a Court or historical investigation. I think the Resurrection of Christ can be judged by that standard and in that way.
People are left free to do this and to judge either way - its up to them and the presuppositions they bring to the issue.
Their presuppositions will determine their conclusion.
I believe in the supernatural, for instance, and I think I have evidence that helps to justify my belief.
I wrote this up some while ago but offer in evidence that my belief is rational:
Matthew Crucifixion Events Documented
by Crossfortoday.org
The first New Testament Gospel records some dramatic events that took place during
Christ's crucifixion. There was an unusual daytime darkness. The very thick Temple veil
is said to have been torn. There was an earthquake. The graves were said to have been
opened and some dead rose.
Ancient Jewish and Roman writings and a modern geological report that provides
external mention of the darkness, the earthquake and damage to the Temple occurring in
the same time frame do exist. This paper mostly serves to make readers aware of
webpages where interested persons can do their own research into those reports. Are
they myth or history? What conclusions can reasonably be reached after a fair and open
minded investigation?
I, of course, have my own biases and have drawn my own conclusions. What might
yours be?
There is no extant documentation about the people rising from the graves. Because we
live in a time of great scientific achievement and technological wonder we are prone to
disbelieve the idea that the supernatural exists. The paper will seek to deal with this kind
of bias through excerpting a practicing psychiatrist's report of of an exorcism. This was
done in desperation after all standard medical texts proved negative and all appropriate
medical treatments failed. The patient then went on to live a normal life.
I hope readers will find this report interesting.
I will refer readers to the pertinent webpages. Also because the Christian claim is that
Christ rose again t readers will be referred to a webpage maintained by philosopher Dr.
Gary Habermas. Dr. Habermas obtained his PHD in philosophy from the University of
Detroit Mercy , Michigan State University in part by arguing that the Resurrection of Christ is an
historically probable event for his dissertation. Since then, he has made a career out of
tracking scholarly literature dealing with the resurrection from virtually all
philosophical viewpoints.
For the Biblical report people should read Matthew Chapter 27.
The unusual darkness is discussed online at the following addresses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_darkness
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/thallus-on-the-darkness-at-noon
The gist is that a Greek historian named Thallus made mention of the darkness in one of
his writings, saying it was an eclipse. Thallus's account was later disputed by a Christian
writer who noted that Christ was crucified at the time of the Passover. The Christian
historian was named Julius Africans. He claimed the darkness was a supernatural event
because the crucifixion took place during a full moon and that an eclipse during a full
moon is not possible.
The actual documents containing these reports are no longer available to us. Many
ancient documents are lost to us. But an historian who wrote later – about 600 or 700
years later – made mention of them in a history he wrote. Those interested are referred to
the above links. It should be noted that historians of ancient history often have to work
with chains of references like these.
It is up to us to assign some level of probability and of credibility to the reports. We have
to ask questions like:
“ Is it possible that supernatural events could actually occur?” “What kind of biases or
agendas could the ancient or modern writer have.” Historians have to ask these and like
questions and to sift through the materials that offer themselves to the historian.
We have to ask the same kind of questions and to answer them for ourselves.
There are reports of strange events taking place in the Jerusalem Temple that existed at
the time. These reports do not mention Christ's crucifixion but they do reference the
same time frame. There is a good chronological fit.
Those interested are referred to an online article written by a Jewish group who have
accepted that the historical Jesus is their Messiah.
http://www.hope-of-israel.org.nz/31ad.html
The group is called The Hope of Israel.
The references they use are available online for those interested in reading them from
the Jewish writings themselves.
Some modern geologists have claimed to have found evidence of an earthquake that
took place in that same time fame. They cannot document the specific day or year, of
course.
Still they can document that an earthquake took place within a narrow band of years that
center around the time of the Crucifixion event. Readers are cautioned about accepting
more specific claims but are referred to one online report and are encouraged to research
this for themselves.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47555983/ns/technology_and_sciencescience/
t/quakereveals- day-jesus-crucifixion-researchers-believe/
The main thrust on this paper is to try to deal with modern naturalistic bias. What I
might term anti-supernatural bias. With what kind of basic philosophic outlook should
we consider these kinds of reports?
That outlook is solely a matter of personal choice. It will determine what the reader
chooses to make of all of this. Is it merely literature? Do the accounts combine to
document only disconnected natural events. Or is it possible that they combine to
document that the supernatural broke into history?
To help counter modern bias and to try to place consideration of this material on a level
playing field I will excerpt the testimony of Dr. William P. Wilson. At the time Dr.
Wilson wrote he was on the faculty of Duke University, Durham North Carolina as
Professor of Psychiatry.
The excerpt is contained in a book entitled Demon Possession: Papers Presented at
the University of Nortre Dame edited by John Warwick Montgomery.
The papers were presented at the University of Nortre Dame January 8-11, 1975.
The editor Dr. Montgomery has several degrees in the areas of law, philosophy and
theology and is the author of many books and articles. Readers are encouraged to look
his resume up on the web.
This excerpt is from pages 225-226 of the book.
“This 32 year old twice married female was brought in because of falling spells which
had been treated [ with medications] She was examined on the neurosurgical service
and after all examinations including EEG, brain scan, and a pneumoencephalogram
were negative, she was transferred to the psychiatric service. Her mental status
examination was unremarkable and all of the staff commented that she seemed normal
until she had her first “spell.”
While standing at the door of the room she was violently thrown to the floor bruising
her arm severely. She was picked up and carried to her room all the while resisting
violently. when the author arrived eight persons were restraining her as she thrashed
about on the bed.
Her facial expression was one of anger and hate. [The italics are Dr. Wilson's.]
Sedation resulted in sleep. During the ensuring weeks ,the patient was treated
pschotherapeutically and it was learned that there was considerable turmoil in her
childhood home, but because she was”pretty” she was spoiled....
she remarried and the second husband was a “nice” but unexciting man. She continued
to associate with her “high living” friends when her husband demanded that she give up
her friends and her parties, she started having the “spells.”
The usual psychotherapeutic treatment for hysteria including interviews under sodium
amytol only aggravated her spells. Seclusion in the closed section brought her assaultive
and combative behavior to an end but she would have spells in which she became mute,
especially when religious matters were discussed. More dramatically, when the names
Jesus or Christ were mentioned she would immediately go into a trance. On one
occasion while in a coma , in desperation, a demon was exorcised and her spells ceased.
She subsequently accepted Christ as her savior and has been well since.”
This link goes to Dr. Habermas's webage, where readers will find audio and written
resources on the Resurrection of Christ. http://garyhabermas.com/
Dr. Hanermas's Doctoral dissertation from the University of Michigan is online on his
webpage. Dr. Habermas has argued for the historicity of the Resurrection before
university audiences in America and abroad.
Those interested are encouraged to listen in on some that are available.
http://garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm
@Larry A: "There was an unusual daytime darkness. The very thick Temple veil
is said to have been torn. There was an earthquake. The graves were said to have been
opened and some dead rose."
Other religions have used natural events to bolster the drama of their own myths. Eruptions of Mount Etna were caused by Vulcan working at his forge. An eclipse happened because Amaterasu went into a cave to sulk after a fight with the Wind God. Graves get opened in earthquakes, floods, landslides, etc. Where's the eyewitness evidence that any of these events coincided with the supposed crucifixion of the Jesus character? What's different about your preferred mythology?
"an earthquake took place within a narrow band of years that center around the time of the Crucifixion event"
The 1982 North Yemen earthquake took place within a narrow band of years that center around the murder of John Lennon. So what" Earthquakes happen everyday.
Your exorcism story dates from 1975. That's within a narrow band of years that center around the release of "The Exorcist" book and movie. Wow. What an amazing coincidence.
"its up to them and the presuppositions they bring to the issue."
Your presuppositions are pretty obvious. My only presupposition is that evidence means documented, verified facts, not a distorted mish-mash of real events and mythology. All I'm seeing here is evidence of profound gullibility.
You wrote:
"Your exorcism story dates from 1975. That's within a narrow band of years that center around the release of "The Exorcist" book and movie. Wow. What an amazing coincidence."
No coincidence - the fact that this was a big in the culture was most likely the reason for their interest. Montgomery had several doctorates and scholarly interests - practiced law before the highest courts in USA, England and France as well as defended human rights before international court. But was also a theologian and Christian apologist.
I think he arranged for the symposium.
I provided links to other sites about the damage to the Temple and so forth. Its the kind of stuff historians have to piece together all the time in order to do history. We see things differently - its OK.
Larry
mykcob4,
Babel was an important town in Nimrod's Assyrian Empire, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+10:9-11&version=NKJV. The part about different languages most likely has to do with the influx of foreigners from new areas that Nimrod conquered. So it went from a local homogeneous town to a cosmopolitan regional trading/administrative city with a large foreign population. Nimrod is a mythical figure but the Assyrian Empire was very real. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-assyrian-empire-under-ass...
We can agree on this. Thanks for the info.
Larry
SBMontero,
Hi,
You wrote:
"Today none of these arguments are necessary, because we know that god isn't necessary in the equation of creation of the universe, galaxies, solar system, earth, life, mammals, or humans. At this point it's no longer a theological or philosophical discussion, it's about science..."
It is a fact - so I am told - that there four and only four fundamental forces of nature. Gravity, electromagnetism, Strong Force and Weak Force. These four have to have almost exactly the constants they in fact do have and have to have the ratios they do , in order for any physics to be possible - in other words for the universe and you and I to exist.
Humans have been able to understand this reality - these facts.
So here we have a reality that requires mathematical fine tuning for all other physical reality to exist - and we are so gifted that there is this correspondence between what goes on in our collective intellect and with what actually exists "out there" - I think my faith goes along way to helping me to account for all of this in my thinking.
I find that intellectually satisfying.
.
Larry
Fine tuning arguments are just the god of the gaps in a fancy dress.
-----------------------
It is odd you would refer to their ratios, as being exact; since the ratios between these forces change based on the energy level (in fact, they kind of converge).
-----------------------
The two big fine tuning problems come from the inability to do the calculations required to calculate the constants; and the hand waving argument that it seems they don't converge to the measured values. In English: You can't calculate X exactly, but it seems it should be large; but when you measure it, it is small. Meaning something has to conspire in the part you can't do (because you don't understand it), to cancel the part you can calculate. Again, it is just the god of the gaps: The act of inserting god into the parts of the world you don't yet understand. Something the religious have been doing for a long time. And each time being forced to retreat to a new gap when the old gap is understood; making the whole idea un-falsifiable.
A simpler example would be someone trying to balance their budget for the month, but they have lost track of their activities during the month. They started with $500, they thought they spent a lot, but when they check their bank balance they have $300 left. Then to have them conclude that since they have more than they guessed they should have; a supernatural creature must of tampered with their account. If you told someone that since your bank account didn't preform as you guessed it should have because a supernatural creature intervened; we'd say you are a lunatic. When you do it with physics, we call you a theist.
-----------------------
To each his own I suppose.
I defer to your greater knowledge as to the science. I disagree about the God of the gaps thing. It seems to me that only applies when you are trying to explain the science - answering the "how" of it.
No matter how these forces work together - I am not so much interested in that - would be nice to better understand it , of course -
but in the "why should be like this" kind of question. What some might call a meta question.
I am basically asking "why should it be possible to do science at all" - and it seems to me that pondering the reality of just the four forces that makes everything possible is a good place to start. Of course this is a philosophical approach, I guess - different people will think differently - so no right or wrong answers here.
But the fact that our minds are able to comprehend external realities is something that intrigues me.
Larry
"It seems to me that only applies when you are trying to explain the science - answering the "how" of it."
Science seems to explain how quite well on its own. I don't think a god is needed there, either.
God of the gaps is when you insert god into a gap of scientific knowledge. Fine-tuning arguments go something like: we don't currently have a framework that allows certain values to be calculated theoretically, therefore god must have fine-tuned them to their observed values. And when/if we do have that framework, the "fine-tuners" will just move god to a new gap; as they have done so many times in the past.
For example: when I was younger, the "fine-tuners" cried that apparent flatness of the universe demanded that god must have fine-tuned the flatness in the early universe to 1 part in 10^62. Since then a non-supernatural process was discovered that sets the flatness to even higher precision. Did "fine-tuners" learn their lesson and stop making god of the gaps arguments? Of course not; they just switched to a new gap (the gap you discussed).
Let me see if I can simplify this for you. Why do we do the things we do? Why do you not stick your hand in a roaring fire even if it feels a bit cold? Because we know from real world experience we gained, that fire is hot, and hot things can hurt us. We know that from real experience and we also know that because other trusted people have told us this.
We also learn in our lives, usually the hard way, that other people can not be trusted in what the say for everything.
Larry: I have a special magical bottle of cure all + eternal life. It may look and taste like dirty pond water, but trust me, it will cure you of all ailments and grant your immortality. For this special bottle of liquid, I only have limited quantities because it is so special and powerful, I will sell you one for a low low price of $10,000 dollars cash.
Why do you not take me up on this offer? Why do you not take my word for it? Because you reasoned, based on experiences that people can lie, especially if it is for their own gain. That this lie is likely because the claim I made is extremely unlikely, and I demand a lot of money for it. Everything you have learned in life tells you that I am not to be trusted in a deal like that.
Why do you drive on the right side of the road instead of the left? (Unless you are in one of those countries that do it the other way around.) Simple reasoning and logic, backed by copious amounts of evidence that you have been able to verify for yourself tells you that it is highly preferable to drive on the correct side of the road.
Nearly everything you do in life, is based on real world evidence, sound reasoning, no word games, and taking people's shared knowledge on things you have good reason to accept, (based on real evidence,) that they may have it right.
Why is it, as soon as we approach the edges of well understood, graspable, studiable reality and concepts, do you suddenly abandon this system of reasoning, and real world evidence, for some story that is in no way verifiable, no more verifiable than the flying spaghetti monster?
I will tell you why: You been brainwashed into it since you were little, and defenseless to this sort of brainwashing. You hold onto it because it is far more comfortable than the reality of admitting you and the other people involved in your particular religion got it wrong that you been cruelly tricked. A system that plays on people's emotions.
For many people, it is far more effective to play on emotions than a system of logic and reasoning. Why do you think mass media ad's almost universally focus on emotional techniques over logical/sound reasoning technique? We are all scared of death and loss, there is no more powerful emotional play that can be made to manipulate people to abandon reasoning, logic, and real world evidence, even if we use those tools in so many other aspects of our lives.
Let me see if I can simplify this for you. Why do we do the things we do? Why do you not stick your hand in a roaring fire even if it feels a bit cold? Because we know from real world experience we gained, that fire is hot, and hot things can hurt us. We know that from real experience and we also know that because other trusted people have told us this.
Thinking Christians believe in the resurrection of Christ because trusted people told us they saw the Risen Christ in bodily form after the crucifixion. Those where people who had real world experience and who where willing to suffer deprivation and die for their testimony. As real world people they knew as well as you or I that dead people do not rise from the dead. yet they heard, saw, touched and ate with this One.
This is an alleged fact - let's say alleged - that is open to historical investigation. My position on this site is that this is a rational belief.
Why do I think it rational? Because I think it is rational to trust truthful people when they report actual events - especially when they could have easily saved their own lives by changing their testimony. Also because I read Gary Habermas's PHD in philosophy thesis - which he got from a secular state university - note secular - arguing for the probable historicity of the resurrection.
To me when one gets a degree like that - while not proving the event - it does certify the rationality of the belief. That the belief can be rationally supported.
Larry
Just to be clear, thinking christians believe in the resurrection of christ because:
- supposedly trustworthy people that died 2000 years ago that supposedly witnessed these wild claims the book makes,
- told other supposedly trustworthy people about it,
- that told the supposedly trustworthy writers of one of the original holy books/bibles 100's of years later,
- that supposedly trustworthy editors edited many times,
- that supposedly trustworthy translators translated,
- that supposedly trustworthy religious leaders today reference.
All this trust to verify the incredible claims with zero real world evidence beyond the book's claims itself to these claims the bible makes. (With tons and tons of real world evidence we can test today that the various bibles got it all wrong.)
You Larry, have way way too much trust in that long chain of people. Especially considering they pass out collection plates every Sunday. I suppose you theist call it faith. I call it deluded in the warm blanket of comfortable denial and ignorance based on zero real world evidence, and counter to tons of real world evidence that says the bible is filled with lies and falsehoods.
I could write a book, that makes all sort of wild claims, and then just say the book and the events in are real, based on real "trust worthy" people that witnessed to the events over 2000 years ago in the same book and you would believe everything I write? Why not?
Larry A., Let me see if I can simplify=
Since you profess to believe in the resurrection do you also believe in all of the miracles in the entire Bible? If you believe in all of those miracles why can't you do them yourself like Jesus said that you can?
In your entire life have you ever seen anyone get resurrected? Why haven't you? Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:16 that if the dead do not rise then Jesus didn't rise. So have you ever seen any dead people that you knew walking around after they have died?
The bottom line is that you can't do the miracles that Jesus said you could do and you haven't seen any resurrected dead people. It sure seems like you don't have a winning hand.
Who told you? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is no known contemporary source for the resurrection of Jesus, or for any part of his life. So who exactly told you?
For about 1850 years Christians believed they were written by these people. Then along came critics who had the avowed purpose of separating the Gospels from these names. the purposely dated the writings as far beyond the lives of the writers as possible. Since then the dates have been all over the place. I just researched this myself and accept dates within the lives of the purported writers. can I prove it - no. But there is no real reason for me to doubt it either. That's what I personally believe - and I could say more about that but you can go with the older dates. Ok with me. 1 Corinthians 15 - Paul had to have received that within about 7 years of the resurrection and he had to have gotten it from the apostles. Look up C.H.Dodd " the early preaching and teaching of the early church" Dodd was a liberal Bible scholar.
When you thought the experts supported your world view (fine tuning) you didn't have a problem with them. But when the experts discredit your world view (who and when the Gospels were written) you went straight to conspiracy theory.
Don't you find that worrisome?
Larry A: "in other words for the universe and you and I to exist"
If those forces weren't exactly the way they are, we wouldn't be here talking about them. It's that simple. It's presumptuous to use our existence as evidence of a divine purpose.
Larry, you are a decent person and the bible is unworthy of you. You are trapped in erroneous thought and desperately wrong, but you are doing impressive work to modify the bible and your worldview so that both can reside in your mind at the same time.
The Permian Extinction killed countless trillions of intelligent animals. Many of the mammal-like reptiles were capable of deep caring and profound suffering (like the cynodont called Thrinaxodon). They all went through exquisite misery and heartbreak 251 million years ago, and their decendents suffered for millions of years. All because a magma plume under modern day Siberia erupted and laid down enough lava to cover North America with 1,000 feet of magma. The details that you blithely refer to as philosophy and lessons about science are actually important. Not to you and me for some moral lesson from a loving creator, they were important to our distant cousins that endured horror and pain.
You seem to think this is about us. You, me, mankind. But it isn't. This is about real agony suffered by real beings. How can you imagine that the Tower of Babel or Jonah in the fish or a talking serpent is relevant at all? We're discussing reality and our concern for others' well being, and you are speaking about supposedly profound truths extracted from a book of errors. Like I say, you are clearly better than this.
Add to your self-taught studies what we know about the actual history of life on this planet. Youtube has a great many presentations from the world's finest universities. Consider as you watch them what our primitive ancestors' lives were actually like. It's not just about humanity, it's about every descendent of a simple self replicating molecule about 4 billion years ago. Learn about our larger family's struggles to survive this planet, then compare that to your comments about "philisophical accounting".
Lastly, the modern human being's brain is the product of an early simple nerve network that emerged over 600 million years ago and has continued to evolve ever since. Your personal experiences and mine are deeply colored by our brilliant minds. We can convince ourselves of many things. That is why reliance on the scientific method is so important. We can fool ourselves, but studious documentation of experimental results allows us to avoid the pitfall of our own imagination. You ought not trust your personal feelings and impressions, you should trust emperical data. The last thing you should trust is a book that is provably false.
@Truett
Man, you don't waste time. Went straight for the rocket artillery.
Pages