Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[glendab]

Hello Helpful.

I actually can refute Pascal’s wager, which for those who are not familiar with it states that “It is better to believe in God and be wrong(where nothing would happen to you) than to not believe and be wrong(where you would go to hell”. First off the issue with this is that it can only apply to one religion at a time or in other words which religion’s version of hell should you be avoiding? Should you believe in Islam to avoid their hell or what about specific forms of Christianity that denounce other sects as false. Secondly Pascal’s wager doesn’t influence belief because I could apply the same logic to Santa Claus but I wouldn’t actually start believing in Santa Claus because of it, it would simply seem more beneficial to believe in Santa Claus. So fearing hell doesn’t change whether or not you believe in hell. Pascal’s Wager while interesting means almost nothing to any non-believers(especially because they aren’t afraid of hell and aren’t concerned with avoiding it)

Welcome to CAF! Hope you chat lots. I loved an Atheist - my dad, so you guys n gals aren’t all bad! LOL. Just frustrating to some of us, so please have patience with us when you see the steam coming out of our ears.

As for Pascal’s Wager, he obviously never read the Scripture that said not everyone who calls ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter into the Kingdom (of Heaven). Oh dear, so even those who do believe may not get to the journey’s final happy destination!

It is more rational to believe than dis-believe and there *are *proofs of the existence of God, but militant Atheists tend to ignore or discount them.

Glenda

 

[RGCheek]

I said already that the infallible Nicene Creed says that Jesus ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right Hand of the Father. Similarly, the Acts of the Apostles gives the eyewitness testimony of the Ascension. It does not specify, neither did I, exactly where Heaven is.

Science has now proven that other dimensions exist and other universes along with it. There was a previous universe in existence when the Big Bang occurred and some of the black holes left their mark in the cosmic background radiation patterns, as I understand it.

So why cant heaven be located in another dimension, and to travel between the two simply requires some kind of ‘shift’ from one universe to the next?

And doesn’t this mean that the concept of Heaven is not in and of itself Noumenal any more as we have scientific basis now for giving Heaven room in the natural realm?

For the record, I detest Kant’s dichotomy between the Heavenly and the phenomenal.

 

[glendab]

Hello RG.

Show me where in the theory of Evolution abiogenesis is implied.

You cant because that is not how science works. Evolution is evolution of life and what might have caused life to start is not part of its evolution.

)

Um, both abiogenesis and biogenesis were problems that they were trying to sort out prior to Darwin and those who held both ideas were his peers and his scientific “parents.” Another thing: there are many theories of evolution, it is a complex field of study now, so that’s that. In order to prove the theory of evolution, the moment of either abiogenesis or biogenesis NEEDED TO BE FOUND in order to lay the very foundation upon which the theory, now theories, could be built and finding this flash point is what lead Darwin down the road he chose to go. BTW discussions of evolution is frowned upon here at CAF and will only in general be tolerated in peripheral discussions, so be careful.

Glenda

 

[RGCheek]

Hello RG.

Um, both abiogenesis and biogenesis were problems that they were trying to sort out prior to Darwin and those who held both ideas were his peers and his scientific “parents.” Another thing: there are many theories of evolution, it is a complex field of study now, so that’s that. In order to prove the theory of evolution, the moment of either abiogenesis or biogenesis NEEDED TO BE FOUND in order to lay the very foundation upon which the theory, now theories, could be built and finding this flash point is what lead Darwin down the road he chose to go. BTW discussions of evolution is frowned upon here at CAF and will only in general be tolerated in peripheral discussions, so be careful.

Glenda

I agree, and I wont be going into any discussion of evolution itself.

I felt I had to point out the distinction though as many atheists piggyback atheism as a hidden assumption in discussion of evolution, and I try to point out when and where it is given these hidden and false implications.

 

[glendab]

Hello RG.

Science has now proven that other dimensions exist and other universes along with it. There was a previous universe in existence when the Big Bang occurred and some of the black holes left their mark in the cosmic background radiation patterns, as I understand it.

So why cant heaven be located in another dimension, and to travel between the two simply requires some kind of ‘shift’ from one universe to the next?

And doesn’t this mean that the concept of Heaven is not in and of itself Noumenal any more as we have scientific basis now for giving Heaven room in the natural realm?

For the record, I detest Kant’s dichotomy between the Heavenly and the phenomenal.

Science has done no such thing. All of this multiverse and big bang stuff are unprovable. There “proof” lies in mathematical calculations that seemingly work out. 1+1+1=3 and since 3 exists, there must also be several ones in existence, but those of us who understand know that is not so, the ones are simply parts of an equation.

Trying to get others to accept what you do, various dimensions and/or various universes, by simply acting as if they exist isn’t sufficient to prove they exist. They don’t. Hawking is wrong, he simply ran out of alternatives, so he made one up.

Glenda

 

[RGCheek]

Science has now proven that other dimensions exist and other universes along with it. There was a previous universe in existence when the Big Bang occurred and some of the black holes left their mark in the cosmic background radiation patterns, as I understand it.

So why cant heaven be located in another dimension, and to travel between the two simply requires some kind of ‘shift’ from one universe to the next?

And doesn’t this mean that the concept of Heaven is not in and of itself Noumenal any more as we have scientific basis now for giving Heaven room in the natural realm?

For the record, I detest Kant’s dichotomy between the Heavenly and the phenomenal.

Hello RG.

Science has done no such thing. All of this multiverse and big bang stuff are unprovable. There “proof” lies in mathematical calculations that seemingly work out.

And that is how it is with all science where we cannot directly measure an object.

We knew that Neptune existed long before we actually ‘found’ it because of the gravitational impact it had on its neighboring planets. And yes, they used mathematical calculations that worked out to do it.

1+1+1=3 and since 3 exists, there must also be several ones in existence, but those of us who understand know that is not so, the ones are simply parts of an equation.

No, the ones actually are there.

And what ‘those of us who understand’ are you referring to? The Secret Order of Ni?

Trying to get others to accept what you do, various dimensions and/or various universes, by simply acting as if they exist isn’t sufficient to prove they exist. They don’t.

I simply mention it in passing as anyone can google it if they want. I don’t see a need to document everything I say if someone can spend a moment and find it themselves.

But just for you. …

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110809-other-universes-multiverse-big-bang-space-science-microwave/

Now, though, physicists say they’ve devised a way to detect “bruises” from our cosmos’s purported collisions with other universes.

The international team has created a new computer algorithm to hunt for such irregularities in our universe, which they say would be disk-shaped—think of the temporary, circular flattening that happens when one beach ball bumps into another…

Because the multiverse would likely have expanded so fast that its universes would have been pulled far apart shortly after their creation, collisions would likely have occurred only during our universe’s infancy.

Luckily, modern telescopes are able to study a sort of faint baby picture of the universe: the cosmic microwave background. The CMB is radiation emitted by the hot plasma that dominated the universe up until about 380,000 years after the big bang, which is thought to have occurred more than 13 billion years ago.

“For quite awhile, people have suspected there might be other bubble universes. But they thought this was completely untestable,” said theoretical physicist Matthew Johnson of the Perimeter Institute.

“We now have a way to look for signals predicted by the theory. That we’re able to test these ideas, period, is huge”—and due largely to the development of the new software and improved mapping of the CMB…
The multiverse, if it exists, may have sprung out of a chaotic fluctuation of empty space.

Several “bubble” universes similar to our own, but perhaps with slightly different physical laws, would have appeared at about the same time and bumped against each other before diffusing across the multiverse.

The new algorithm offers a systematic, statistics-backed way to search for subtle evidence of these possible crashes in the mostly smooth pattern of the CMB—something that may be impossible for humans alone.

indiatimes.com/technology/science/map-proves-existence-of-other-universes-78877.html

However, a few weeks ago, scientists published a new map of the cosmic microwave background — the ‘radiation’ left behind after the Big Bang that created the universe 13.8 billion years ago. The map, based on the Planck’s data, showed anomalies in the background radiation that, some experts say, could only have been caused by the gravitational pull of other universes outside our own.

As we approach the Technological Singularity our comprehension of the universe will change rapidly, advances will come faster than you can read about them.

You might want to gear up.

 

[glendab]

I don’t need to gear up. Hawking is wrong. He ran out of explanations and made one up - the theory of multiple universes co-existing one over the other. I’m actually pretty informed about such nonsense unfortunately. My dad worked for NASA and was a genius as were several members of my family who made their marks respectively on the world of science. Many nights were spent at the dinner table getting lessons in physics that lasted for way too long. The soup got cold and I got bored. God is. No disrespect to my dear old deceased dad. Jesus did it all and is your end. No proof required. Those who cannot believe require proof before they will believe and for those of us who do believe, no proof is required. I am lazy and it is much easier to believe than try to prove the non-existence of God. Too much math to work out. So, this really is a simple question with a simpler answer - it is very rational to believe God exists, simply because I’m too lazy to do all that math that is supposed to prove He doesn’t exist simply because I can understand math that only a small portion of the population does and that is exactly what happens. It is more rational to give it up, believe God exists and do something worthwhile like bake a cake and have some fun. People get smarter than God and become egomaniacs and deify their own thoughts. If I can get my mind around it, it must be less-than God because I understand it and I’m not God, so therefore God doesn’t exist! Poppycock! Instead they should look and see in the science of physics the mind of God and His magnificence.

Glenda

 

[RGCheek]

I don’t need to gear up. Hawking is wrong. He ran out of explanations and made one up - the theory of multiple universes co-existing one over the other.

Hawking does not believe that multiple universe theory is ‘real’, and that is not the ‘other universes’ that I am talking about. I am talking about actual real universes that are not just probability models in the Many Worlds theory. That is what has been discovered to have hard physical evidence in support of it. You are talking about something entirely different.

I’m actually pretty informed about such nonsense unfortunately. My dad worked for NASA and was a genius as were several members of my family who made their marks respectively on the world of science. Many nights were spent at the dinner table getting lessons in physics that lasted for way too long. The soup got cold and I got bored.

That is the first time I have seen an appeal to authority based on ‘cold soup’ lectures.

God is. No disrespect to my dear old deceased dad. Jesus did it all and is your end. No proof required. Those who cannot believe require proof before they will believe and for those of us who do believe, no proof is required. I am lazy and it is much easier to believe than try to prove the non-existence of God. Too much math to work out.

Faith is all that is asked of us, is it not? God will not give you or any of us a math quiz.

People get smarter than God and become egomaniacs and deify their own thoughts. If I can get my mind around it, it must be less-than God because I understand it and I’m not God, so therefore God doesn’t exist! Poppycock! Instead they should look and see in the science of physics the mind of God and His magnificence.

Glenda

Intellectual hubris is the genesis of much of atheism, I agree. But that doesn’t mean that all intellectuals are somehow absent faith.

One can have both, faith and reason.

 

[glendab]

hello RG.

Hawking does not believe that multiple universe theory is ‘real’, and that is not the ‘other universes’ that I am talking about. I am talking about actual real universes that are not just probability models in the Many Worlds theory. That is what has been discovered to have hard physical evidence in support of it. You are talking about something entirely different.

Actually I asked Hawking and got a reply and he does believe that and wouldn’t talk to me about God anymore. I tried to convert the idiot. I’m right. He is wrong so there! I recommend you seriously consider the science of baking cakes.

Glenda

P.S. I will not discuss further with you or anyone my “talk” with Hawking. It was a long time ago. Some others try to talk to him about God from time to time. He started to look into the problem of God at that point so I know my words were actually considered. He’s not stupid, just stubborn.

 

[inocente]

Those who cannot believe require proof before they will believe and for those of us who do believe, no proof is required. I am lazy and it is much easier to believe than try to prove the non-existence of God. Too much math to work out. So, this really is a simple question with a simpler answer - it is very rational to believe God exists, simply because I’m too lazy to do all that math that is supposed to prove He doesn’t exist simply because I can understand math that only a small portion of the population does and that is exactly what happens. It is more rational to give it up, believe God exists and do something worthwhile like bake a cake and have some fun.

Well said. I like to think Pope Francis would approve. Christ is for everyone, including the uneducated and the down-trodden, and He doesn’t need elitists who imagine they can prove or disprove the existence of some abstracted god and then tell the rest of us what to believe.

Reminds me of an old AKUS song:

*I’ve seen hard times and I’ve been told
There isn’t any wonder that I fall
Why do we suffer, crossing off the years
There must be a reason for it all

I’ve trusted in You, Jesus, to save me from my sins
Heaven is the place I call my home
But I keep on getting caught up in this world I’m living in
And Your voice it sometimes fades before I know

Hurtin’ brings my heart to You, crying with my need
Depending on Your love to carry me
The love that shed His blood for all the world to see
This must be the reason for it all

Hurtin’ brings my heart to You, a fortress in the storm
When what I wrap my heart around is gone
I give my heart so easily to the ruler of this world
When the one who loves me most will give me all

In all the things that cause me pain You give me eyes to see
I do believe but help my unbelief
I’ve seen hard times and I’ve been told
There is a reason for it all

youtube.com/watch?v=UWXNm9b6pKs*

 

[Peter_Plato]

I said already that the infallible Nicene Creed says that Jesus ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right Hand of the Father. Similarly, the Acts of the Apostles gives the eyewitness testimony of the Ascension. It does not specify, neither did I, exactly where Heaven is.
You did not answer my question about the Ascension of Jesus. Do you believe that the Nicene Creed is true and that the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles is true or do you say that their testimony is false. Do you believe or not in the literal and actual Ascension of Our Lord into Heaven, or do you say that it is just a metaphor. And that your position as a philosopher is that the Nicene Creed is to be held metaphorically and what is described in the Nicene Creed is not the literal truth and infallible teaching of the Catholic Church?

I think you are making unwarranted inferences regarding what a physical ascension must mean.

I have no doubt that the eyewitnesses saw Jesus ascend upwards in front of their eyes. I also have no doubt that none of the eyewitnesses took that act to mean Heaven or the right hand of God are somewhere “up there” beyond the stratosphere where they could some day be accessed by human ingenuity.

The point being that even if Jesus ascended in front of their eyes, that does not imply that the physical act of “going upwards” is the trajectory or route he HAD to take to arrive at “the right hand of God.” Clearly, the intended meaning is that Heaven is “a higher realm,” a more “lofty” order and that by going upwards the meaning to be understood is that Heaven is at the highest level in the ontological hierarchy, and Jesus “ascended” there as a kind of object lesson - a parable of sorts - to show the eyewitnesses that his mission was accomplished and, like Elijah, would be “taken up” to the highest order, ontologically speaking.

This “up” is, in fact, not a metaphor, but rather a far more basic or archetypal “up” from which comes the less precise and attenuated way in which “up” is used to describe anything which is “above” our relative location in physical space. Thus, the “up” implied by “taken up to Heaven” is the “up” of ontological hierarchy or “superlative order.” In this sense, it is the use of “up” to describe the physical order and things higher than our heads that is the actual metaphor adapted from the more basic qualitative meaning of “higher” to express the hierarchical ordering inherent in reality.

Thus, the “valley of death” expresses a “low” place, while Mount Moriah a “high” place, metaphorically speaking, to remind us that reality has a qualitative order that is far more basic and significant than relative physical location. This can be seen quite clearly from military strategy, as well, when capturing or dominating a “higher” place gives one advantage of vision and defense. “Up” is advantageous on a physical level because “higher” is, qualitatively speaking, better, which is why it makes sense for Jesus to have ascended rather than descended or simply ridden off into the sunset on his Jerusalem colt. The significance of the Ascension would have been completely shrouded and unrecognized owing to the inappropriate event metaphor used to physically “embody” or manifest the event to the eyewitnesses.

There is no doubt in my mind that is the way the eyewitnesses saw the event. It is only in our materialism saturated culture that we have turned things on their heads and given the physical “up” prime of place above the far more meaningful and real, qualitative “up.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well said. I like to think Pope Francis would approve. Christ is for everyone, including the uneducated and the down-trodden, and He doesn’t need elitists who imagine they can prove or disprove the existence of some abstracted god and then tell the rest of us what to believe.

If Christ is “for everyone,” then presumably he would also be for those “elitists” for whom you seem to have such disdain. Expressing what the “elitists” do in THEIR search for God as a “search for an abstracted god” seems to belie your small-mindedness, not the inclusivity of Jesus. Merely because you have an antipathy towards intelligence and no desire to search to better understand God, does not mean Jesus excludes the educated.

As you, yourself, admit, Jesus is “for everyone” not just those for whom you inocente, personally, have empathy. Love your enemies, including the educated and up-trodden.

Jesus doesn’t need “elitists” who imagine they have some prime of place merely because they have no interest in knowing the God of the philosophers but still want to “tell the rest of us what to believe.”

Elitist is as elitist does.

 

[RGCheek]

hello RG.

Actually I asked Hawking and got a reply and he does believe that and wouldn’t talk to me about God anymore.

Yeah, it is a weird concept. He believes it, but believes it is ‘unreal’, which as I understand it means that he thinks it is a valid predictive model but that there is no actual other world that one might go to.

Yeah, I am scratching my head too.

I tried to convert the idiot. I’m right. He is wrong so there! I recommend you seriously consider the science of baking cakes.

I have tried physics, and I have tried baking.

Baking is much much more difficult.

 

[RGCheek]

Well said. I like to think Pope Francis would approve. Christ is for everyone, including the uneducated and the down-trodden, and He doesn’t need elitists who imagine they can prove or disprove the existence of some abstracted god and then tell the rest of us what to believe.

You really think that that is what is going on here?

I thought I was merely in a discussion.

 

[inocente]

So all one needs to do to get closer to Heaven is climb Mount Everest?

Are you insisting that he ascended to a location in the existing material universe?

This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia was cited on another thread. I’d be interested in your comments:

“Where is hell? …] Holy Writ seems to indicate that hell is within the earth, for it describes hell as an abyss to which the wicked descend. …] Is this merely a metaphor to illustrate the state of separation from God? Although God is omnipresent, He is said to dwell in heaven, because the light and grandeur of the stars and the firmament are the brightest manifestations of His infinite splendor. But the damned are utterly estranged from God; hence their abode is said to be as remote as possible from His dwelling, far from heaven above and its light, and consequently hidden away in the dark abysses of the earth. However, no cogent reason has been advanced for accepting a metaphorical interpretation in preference to the most natural meaning of the words of Scripture. Hence theologians generally accept the opinion that hell is really within the earth. The Church has decided nothing on this subject; hence we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know.” - (my emphasis) oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Hell

 

[Tomdstone]

I think you are making unwarranted inferences regarding what a physical ascension must mean.

I have no doubt that the eyewitnesses saw Jesus ascend upwards in front of their eyes. I also have no doubt that none of the eyewitnesses took that act to mean Heaven or the right hand of God are somewhere “up there” beyond the stratosphere where they could some day be accessed by human ingenuity.

The point being that even if Jesus ascended in front of their eyes, that does not imply that the physical act of “going upwards” is the trajectory or route he HAD to take to arrive at “the right hand of God.” Clearly, the intended meaning is that Heaven is “a higher realm,” a more “lofty” order and that by going upwards the meaning to be understood is that Heaven is at the highest level in the ontological hierarchy, and Jesus “ascended” there as a kind of object lesson - a parable of sorts - to show the eyewitnesses that his mission was accomplished and, like Elijah, would be “taken up” to the highest order, ontologically speaking.

This “up” is, in fact, not a metaphor, but rather a far more basic or archetypal “up” from which comes the less precise and attenuated way in which “up” is used to describe anything which is “above” our relative location in physical space. Thus, the “up” implied by “taken up to Heaven” is the “up” of ontological hierarchy or “superlative order.” In this sense, it is the use of “up” to describe the physical order and things higher than our heads that is the actual metaphor adapted from the more basic qualitative meaning of “higher” to express the hierarchical ordering inherent in reality.

Thus, the “valley of death” expresses a “low” place, while Mount Moriah a “high” place, metaphorically speaking, to remind us that reality has a qualitative order that is far more basic and significant than relative physical location. This can be seen quite clearly from military strategy, as well, when capturing or dominating a “higher” place gives one advantage of vision and defense. “Up” is advantageous on a physical level because “higher” is, qualitatively speaking, better, which is why it makes sense for Jesus to have ascended rather than descended or simply ridden off into the sunset on his Jerusalem colt. The significance of the Ascension would have been completely shrouded and unrecognized owing to the inappropriate event metaphor used to physically “embody” or manifest the event to the eyewitnesses.

There is no doubt in my mind that is the way the eyewitnesses saw the event. It is only in our materialism saturated culture that we have turned things on their heads and given the physical “up” prime of place above the far more meaningful and real, qualitative “up.”

So you do deny that Jesus ascended into heaven and sits at the right Hand of the Father as stated in the Creed?

 

[stewstew03]

This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia was cited on another thread. I’d be interested in your comments:

"Where is hell? …] Holy Writ seems to indicate that hell is within the earth, for it describes hell as an abyss to which the wicked descend. …] Is this merely a metaphor to illustrate the state of separation from God? Although God is omnipresent, He is said to dwell in heaven, because the light and grandeur of the stars and the firmament are the brightest manifestations of His infinite splendor. But the damned are utterly estranged from God; hence their abode is said to be as remote as possible from His dwelling, far from heaven above and its light, and consequently hidden away in the dark abysses of the earth. However, no cogent reason has been advanced for accepting a metaphorical interpretation in preference to the most natural meaning of the words of Scripture. Hence theologians generally accept the opinion that hell is really within the earth. The Church has decided nothing on this subject; hence we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know." - (my emphasis) oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Hell

I agree with the conclusion – "we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know."

.

 

[stewstew03]

You would need to explain passages such as 2 Kings 2, which contains the line:

“As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.”

In a skeptical scientific age I can understand why you might be embarrassed by chariots of fire and whirlwinds to heaven. But where do you draw the line? Do you say the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection also never happened and are just metaphorically “the best image available”?

Do Catholics get any instruction in reading scripture? Are you told not to impose your own worldview on the writers, but to try to see through the eyes of their original intended audience?

(btw hell is down, heaven is up because the heavens were thought of as perfect. It was Galileo looking through his new telescope who first saw otherwise. Just as, in scripture, white is perfectly pure, and it was Newton with his prisms who showed it’s the opposite. But that’s physics, and the bible is not a physics textbook.)

Yes we still bow out of respect, which is one indication that all people are basically the same throughout the ages and throughout different cultures. Which should give you confidence that you can understand the world the writers were in, and not treat them as if they are 21st century American post-modernists.

I can’t tell if you’re reading too much into my posts, or if you are just rather passionate about the physical location of heaven. Here’s what I believe:

[1]Heaven exists
[2]Heaven is outside of this world (space/time)
[3]We cannot travel to Heaven in a spaceship
[4]God is omnipresent (and outside of space/time)
[5]We can experience God while here on earth

It seems you would disagree with numbers 3 through 5. In other words, to experience God, we must travel to Heaven, where he lives in a city of pure gold and sits on a throne in a mansion.

 

[stewstew03]

So you do deny that Jesus ascended into heaven and sits at the right Hand of the Father as stated in the Creed?

Do you believe Jesus is sitting in a chair in heaven?

 

[inocente]

If Christ is “for everyone,” then presumably he would also be for those “elitists” for whom you seem to have such disdain. Expressing what the “elitists” do in THEIR search for God as a “search for an abstracted god” seems to belie your small-mindedness, not the inclusivity of Jesus. Merely because you have an antipathy towards intelligence and no desire to search to better understand God, does not mean Jesus excludes the educated.

As you, yourself, admit, Jesus is “for everyone” not just those for whom you inocente, personally, have empathy. Love your enemies, including the educated and up-trodden.

Jesus doesn’t need “elitists” who imagine they have some prime of place merely because they have no interest in knowing the God of the philosophers but still want to “tell the rest of us what to believe.”

Elitist is as elitist does.

I wasn’t looking to produce such a show of righteous indignation, but especially liked your “up-trodden”, that’s very cool.

There’s no reason to get upset. I never said Christ is not also for elitists (I was careful not to), nor God forbid did I mean you personally or any sectarian divide.

I mean that for the vast majority of Christians, including most of the Catholics I know, Christ is a friend rather than a logical proposition. It doesn’t matter to everyman or everywoman what Hawking or his opposite philosophical number proclaim, because your average goat farmer or maternity nurse doesn’t pay much attention to them, or even know they exist. Christ is a person, and scripture isn’t a series of philosophical arguments, it is a narrative. Jesus doesn’t speak in abstractions, he gives us parables.

Surely we can agree on that?

You really think that that is what is going on here?

Whatever you think I might think, I never go with conspiracy theories of any kind, so the answer is a no.