Atheistic Meme re: Good Friday--Your Thoughts?

[PRmerger]

I wouldn’t go that far. I think it’s the option that makes the most sense, is, out defensible, and is therefore the one I believe.

Excellent!

You believe in an immaterial, eternal, transcendent, necessary agent which is the cause of the universe.

But I wouldn’t say that someone who believes in, say, infinite regress is being illogical or unreasonable.

Fair enough.

But were you aware that someone on Team Skeptic, a great member of Team Skeptic, actually, says that you are wrong here?

David Hume is credited with saying: “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgement is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it.” genius.com/David-hume-an-enqu…-122-annotated

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. I’m not a mythicist.

Wonderful.

So you believe he was crucified and died, and then…what is your understanding of the events that ensued?

Did the apostles go home and continue with their lives, and then 200 years later someone fabricated the idea that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Excellent!

You believe in an immaterial, eternal, transcendent, necessary agent which is the cause of the universe.

Nope. I don’t think it was non-physical (I prefer physical/non-physical to material/immaterial), and I’m not sure that it’s eternal (that gets into different theories of time, whether time is fundamental or emergent, and stuff that I haven’t studied enough to form any solid beliefs or opinions about).

Fair enough.

But were you aware that someone on Team Skeptic, a great member of Team Skeptic, actually, says that you are wrong here?

David Hume is credited with saying: “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgement is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it.” genius.com/David-hume-an-enqu…-122-annotated

I disagree with Hume here. Not a first.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Wonderful.

So you believe he was crucified and died, and then…what is your understanding of the events that ensued?

I don’t claim to have a complete understanding. It gets very murky trying to separate which events are historical vs. legendary or mythical, and there really isn’t enough evidence to fully support any given “alternative” explanation and say “this is the thing that happened.” But almost any alternative explanation is going to be more likely than an actual resurrection having taken place; it’s not like the resurrection wins by default here.

Did the apostles go home and continue with their lives, and then 200 years later someone fabricated the idea that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead?

No.

 

[PRmerger]

In paragraph 6 he brackets out “events before the big bang.” When he continues to talk about the beginning of time and beginning of the universe, he’s talking about this expanse of spacetime we find ourselves in, not necessarily all of physical reality.

He also nowhere alludes to a creatio ex nihilo situation, which was the bigger issue.

I will have to disagree. He alludes to creatio ex nihilo. Infact, the entire article is a paean to creatio ex nihilo.

 

[PRmerger]

But almost any alternative explanation is going to be more likely than an actual resurrection having taken place; it’s not like the resurrection wins by default here.

That’s interesting, because I find all the alternate explanations to be so implausible and untenable that resurrection seems to be the only logical answer.

I find that only those who are recusant to the obvious will be able to endorse these alternative explanations.

No.

So let’s talk this through.

What do you think the apostles did after Jesus was crucified, and remained dead? (And please, let’s stay in the context of this discussion. There is no need to offer any inanities like, “Well, they probably hitched a ride on a donkey back to Capernaum”.)

Please offer your explanation for the Christian story.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I will have to disagree. He alludes to creatio ex nihilo. Infact, the entire article is a paean to creatio ex nihilo.

Isn’t it odd then that he never comes right out and say it? Isn’t funny that he could write “a paean to creatio ex nihilo” and never once say the word “nothing,” and meanwhile Lawrence Krauss writes a book about a universe from “nothing” where he talks about the universe upcoming from something?

Care to point out any passages where you think he’s alluding to creation from nothing?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

That’s interesting, because I find all the alternate explanations to be so implausible and untenable that resurrection seems to be the only logical answer.

If at any point in the thread you’d like to begin giving reasons for any of the beliefs you hold, this would be an excellent place to start.

I find that only those who are recusant to the obvious will be able to endorse these alternative explanations.

If I had been given the impression that your experience speaking with atheists and learning their views was either very deep or very broad, I might see this as some kind of rebuke.
But while we’re talking about our own experiences and showing concern for “motivated thinking,” I can’t help but notice that the overwhelming I majority of people I know who believe that the historical evidence for the resurrection is very compelling are people who were already Christians when they started researching it.
Your millage may vary.

So let’s talk this through.

What do you think the apostles did after Jesus was crucified, and remained dead? (And please, let’s stay in the context of this discussion. There is no need to offer any inanities like, “Well, they probably hitched a ride on a donkey back to Capernaum”.)

Please offer your explanation for the Christian story.

As I said, I don’t have one. Too much uncertainty with what “facts” need explaining, too many possible explanations, none of which have any real conclusive evidence behind them, supernatural explanations least of all.

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t it odd then that he never comes right out and say it?

Well, now you’re changing the goalposts, aren’t you, KtS?

You can’t initially declare that an “allusion” is what we are looking for, and now say, “Oh, I want him to ‘come right out and say it’ now!”

Are these not your words here? (bold mine)

He also nowhere alludes to a creatio ex nihilo situation, which was the bigger issue.

 

[PRmerger]

]and meanwhile Lawrence Krauss writes a book about a universe from “nothing” where he talks about the universe upcoming from something?

Yep. Another example of changing the goalposts.

 

[PRmerger]

Please offer your explanation for the Christian story.

As I said, I don’t have one.

Curiouser and curiouser it gets.

Reminds me of Michael Shermer, whose entire raison d’etre as a scientist is to investigate and question and dig deeper, yet when he comes face to face with the numinous, he peculiarly shrugs and takes a most decidedly anti-scientific approach: “I don’t have an answer, and I’m fine with just enjoying the Not Knowing”.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t help but notice that the overwhelming I majority of people I know who believe that the historical evidence for the resurrection is very compelling are people who were already Christians when they started researching it.
Your millage may vary.

How does this sound to you: “I can’t help but notice that the overwhelming majority of people I know who believe that slavery is wrong are people who were already anti-slavery when they started.”

What say you to this?

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree with Hume here. Not a first.

Yes, since you’re already way too far to the right to continue to cling to the label of “secular humanist”, I can see how you would have had many disagreements with Hume.

Not to belabor the point, since you’re already on Team Believer here on the universe having a beginning,

but here’s a copy of a post I wrote a while ago which limns how noncorrupted judgement demands that we reject the idea of an infinite past.

This is in defiance of science as well as philosophy.

Science does assert that the universe did indeed begin to exist.

And good old common sense and reasoning tells us that the universe could not have existed in the infinite past.

As an analogy:
Imagine that you want to display your marble collection. You want to display them when you’ve counted all of them.

So if you have 12 marbles, you will display them pretty quickly.

If you have a million marbles, it will take quite a long time to get to the day when you can display them. But you would, eventually, get to the day.

But if you have an infinite number of marbles, you will never get to the day when you display your marbles. There will always be one more marble to count.

But I see your marble display. (That is, in this parallel, equal to “TODAY”. Today is happening, therefore that means you’ve displayed your marbles).

Therefore, I can conclude that you didn’t have an infinite number of marbles.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I didn’t say anything quite so question-begging as what have have in quotation marks there, but I’ll try to explain.

In the case of my brother and his “magic rocks,” if the energy that is supposedly radiating from the crystals really is something that he and others can detect and has some sort of physical effect on them, it would have to be some kind of energy that we already know about and be able to detect; any sort of ‘new’ energy that it might be would not be able to have such an effect (Sean Carroll talks about this sort of thing here). So, if there is actually something going on, if my brother was able to reliably demonstrate that he was in fact sensing something, either our view of physics is very, very wrong (which isn’t likely; more Sean Carroll goodness here) or there is something supernatural going on. I’d view the supernatural explanation as being more likely.

We do have some examples of regeneration in humans, but nothing as substantial as an amputated limb. If there was a case where it was confirmed to have happened, we could study to see what sort of regeneration was occurring and, if we have identified the genes responsible for that sort of regeneration in other animals, we could check the patient’s DNA for something similar. If it was there, then it’s probably natural.

But let’s say that the DNA wasn’t there, and we can’t find any genetic component to correspond with what was going on. That would start to tip the scales towards something supernatural, but there would be plenty of room for doubt. But what if it wasn’t just this one patient, but a slew of them, all connected to a particular faith healer traveling around the country? Then I’d say we had a bona fide miracle and naturalism is false. This would also be the case if instead of a slow, steady regeneration like we see in animals, we saw something like instantaneous regrowth.

Fair enough.

And it would also be another example of how all of us, even atheists, intuit that something can’t come from nothing.

So an instantaneous growth of a limb–something coming from nothing–would be an example of a…miracle, yes? And it would be proof of the supernatural, to you, yes?

And yet we already have your acknowledgement that this occurred, 14 billion years ago.

The universe came to exist, “instantaneously”, from nothing.

Voila! You’ve talked yourself into belief in the supernatural. :extrahappy:

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Well, now you’re changing the goalposts, aren’t you, KtS?

You can’t initially declare that an “allusion” is what we are looking for, and now say, “Oh, I want him to ‘come right out and say it’ now!”

Are these not your words here? (bold mine)

Nope. The first part is me saying that if you are correct - which I don’t believe - it’s kind of a weird situation, and asking if you agree with that much.

The second part is me saying I don’t agree with you.

No contradiction, no shifting of goalposts.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Yep. Another example of changing the goalposts.

Not a shift of the goalposts, just an aside.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Curiouser and curiouser it gets.

Reminds me of Michael Shermer, whose entire raison d’etre as a scientist is to investigate and question and dig deeper, yet when he comes face to face with the numinous, he peculiarly shrugs and takes a most decidedly anti-scientific approach: “I don’t have an answer, and I’m fine with just enjoying the Not Knowing”.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ll3oeqQXbe1qbvaudo1_500.gif

Withholding belief is a proper course of action when evidence is lacking.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

How does this sound to you: “I can’t help but notice that the overwhelming majority of people I know who believe that slavery is wrong are people who were already anti-slavery when they started.”

What say you to this?

I say it’s a poor analogy.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Fair enough.

And it would also be another example of how all of us, even atheists, intuit that something can’t come from nothing.

You and I are definitely in agreement on that point, but I’m not as confident that this intuition is a universal one.

So an instantaneous growth of a limb–something coming from nothing–would be an example of a…miracle, yes? And it would be proof of the supernatural, to you, yes?

I would say so.

And yet we already have your acknowledgement that this occurred, 14 billion years ago.

No, we don’t. I’ve said nothing of the kind. I think that something always existed and that this thing is impersonal and natural.

The universe came to exist, “instantaneously”, from nothing.

I’ve quite explicitly said that I do not think this happened.

Voila! You’ve talked yourself into belief in the supernatural. :extrahappy:

Clearly not, as much as you may wish it were so.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Yes, since you’re already way too far to the right to continue to cling to the label of “secular humanist”

You keep saying this, and you keep being wrong.

Not to belabor the point, since you’re already on Team Believer here on the universe having a beginning,

but here’s a copy of a post I wrote a while ago which limns how noncorrupted judgement demands that we reject the idea of an infinite past.

This analogy you make with the marble collection to show that we can never get to “today” if time stretches infinitely into the past is only an issue if the A-theory of time is correct. Among philosophers, more lean towards or accept the B-theory (I think the undecideds are the largest group overall), which eliminates that particular problem; I’m not entirely sure if the numbers are similar among scientists, but I get the impression that A-theorists are in the minority, at least among physicists. Since I’m on the fence about theories of time, I’m not willing to say that someone who believes in infinite regress is unreasonable or has “corrupt” judgement, even if I don’t think that particular theory is the best one.