Questions from an Agnostic

[Pax]

Hubriss:

…
…

To Pax:
…
…
Your may be right, it MAY not be possibly to COMPLETELY prove that matter cannot be created or destroyed. But I will say that in every documented case/test, 100% of the time this has been proven to be true.

good night.

Thanks for the response and intellectual honesty in your answer. This particular issue of matter and energy was mentioned by you earlier in this thread, and it has a certain significance that should not be ignored. Science holds the concept that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed to be a scientific “law.” The implications and significance of this for science is enormous. From an everyday practical stand point, all is well and good in the “law’s” scientific application.

The problem for you, however, is that this scientific “law” cannot be proven. You seem unbothered by this fact and readily accept this from the scientific community. You give this unprovable scientific claim and many others associated with science a weight they do not deserve. You cannot demand absolute proof that there is a God, and then apply a more liberal standard to the scientific data and reasoning that you yourself use to attack the arguments for the “existence of God.”

I agree with you that “in every documented case/test*] 100% of the time this has been proven to be true.” By the same token you need to admit that everything about Jesus and his miracles, including his resurrection from the dead, was amply proven by eyewitness testimony and sealed by the blood of the martyrs that would not deny what they witnessed. Their observations and witness are just as valid as the scientific observations made by people in lab coats looking through microscopes. Moreover, I doubt that we would find many in lab coats suffering death by martyrdom for their theories on the origin of the cosmos.*

 

[ReformedCatholic]

hurst:

That’s neat - as if it were perhaps caused by the “voice of God” - His Word, by which He indeed created all things.

Exactly! That’s why I say science and religion are about to intersect! Cool stuff.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

There is no human mind seperate from the brain. The brain is damage, the “mind” is damaged.

This debate has been going on for centuries as well. I know it began in intro psychology courses for me along with the debate of “free will vs. determinism.” Is the brain the mind and vice-versa? Is the mind something more than just the brain?

Mind to me refers more to the “being” or “soul” of the person, whereas brain refers to the biological organ.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Pax:

By the same token you need to admit that everything about Jesus and his miracles, including his resurrection from the dead, was amply proven by eyewitness testimony and sealed by the blood of the martyrs that would not deny what they witnessed. Their observations and witness are just as valid as the scientific observations made by people in lab coats looking through microscopes. Moreover, I doubt that we would find many in lab coats suffering death by martyrdom for their theories on the origin of the cosmos.

Pax: very well written.

in XT.

 

[Philthy]

Hubriss:

Hello, I am new to this site and just wanted to throw out a few questions without having to write whole paragraphs since at the moment I don’t have much time. I am 17 and an agnostic, and have been discussing/arguing about what is the truth with my parents and godfather (or even if we can know the truth).

Let me ask you a simple question regarding the ability to know truth: If you determine conclusively that we are unable to know truth, have you not at the same time, determined truth?

Hubriss:

There is no proof that anything the church says is correct.

False. The Church bears witness to Jesus Christ, and there is proof of his existence.

Hubriss:

… it is impossible for anyone to have an experience of something outside of this physical/substantial world.

This is false also. Someone could have such an experience, they just couldnt prove it to you - you seem to be equating the inability of demonstration with the inability of occuring.

Hubriss:

Some reasons that I may think Catholics do believe are: A. The concept that this world is it and there is nothing else after it is too much to handle, therefore causing many people to give up on life. Religion provides closure and it creates a more ordered society.

Really? Care to prove that a “religionless” society is less orderly?
This is pretty weak really.

Hubriss:

B. The fact that the church has been around for 2000 years in truth does not account for much since likely it has continued for the reason that people think that way (everyone else believes it so I will too. Billions of flies can‘t be wrong, eat $%!#), and for the reason that all those years there was never any reason for anyone not to believe in an afterlife (no evidence like evolution that contradicts supreme beings). If you say that it all just fits, how so?

Your logic is greatly flawed by the incontravertable reality that MOST people throughout the history of mankind had no “church” to emulate and unite them in their thinking. Yet all known civilizations - independently- have held to a belief in some sort of higher being.

Hubriss:

1. . How do you get around such discoveries as evolution

Your ignorance is beginning to reach full bloom - evolution is accepted by the Church.

Hubriss:

, the Big Bang,

You think the big bang is inconsistent with God? Think again: thats all God. The “big bang” has no reason for occuring as far as we know - it just “happened”…

Hubriss:

the lack of any evidence that a soul controls the body (the body can‘t function without the brain, a soul does not connect sensations with ideas and meanings).

The soul does not “control” the body in a physical way - you need to do some reading from Catholics.

Hubriss:

I believe that in order to believe the church entirely, it is a must to believe all (or at least most) of the miracles and stories in the bible, because if the creation story isn’t true, what’s to say that Jesus and his miracles really happened (supposed evidence that he is the son of God)?

There are different ways of communicating truths. Much of the writing from early civilizations expresses truth in ways we no longer do - as an allegory or figurative expression. The Church leaves open the possibility of a purely figuratie interpretation to the creation story except for some basics: God as the immediate cause for all creation, for example.

Hubriss:

1. Why does it have to be faith? If there is really a god, and he wants us to live faithfully and love and care for each other, then why doesn’t he plainly reveal himself for the world to see? Jesus was not that big of a revelation since people die for what they believe in every day. Why must it be faith? If this is a test for God to find out who is fit to be with him or not, I would think he would prefer for us to not blindly believe something without sufficient evidence that may have been purposely created to deceive people whether their intentions were righteous, good (whatever) or not.

Perhaps He has endowed us with abilities which do not leave us “blind” even though we lack “proof”. Certainly He has more info than we do and that puts Him in a better position to judge what the right and wrong ways are.

Hubriss:

That’s all for tonight, I’d appreciate it if I can get some answers, I’ll check back with you all tomorrow.
Thanks

 

[Pax]

Hubriss,

You seem to pit the Church and Science against one another. You need to do some research in this area and educate yourself. You’ve made a big deal out of the “Big Bang Theory” as if this contradicts the Church’s teaching that God created everything. The truth of the matter is quite different…in fact the author of the Big Bang Theory was Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest from Belgium, who proposed the idea of a universe born at a single instant in the past - “a day without a yesterday” - and expanding outwards from that moment.

There is nothing in the theory that contradicts God as creator. Some folks attempt to make it seem like an explanation that negates God, but that simply isn’t the case.

 

[Philthy]

Hello Hubriss!

Hubriss:

One of the definitions of concept is: Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. Just like I said.

How do you know ideas are not physical?

Sorry, but the burden would be upon you to “show” us an idea, and verify it scientifically. Can you do that? Why not? Which portion of an idea escapes science? Most especially, you need to explain how UNNATURAL ideas such as Justice and Mercy form from NATURAL processes and then explain how they possibly could produce genetic evolutionary progress in a natural world. Go for it!
There is an old saying: When you are a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail" In your case, “When you are a materialist, everything begins to look physical” You have started with the assumption that all reality is explainable by the observational method of science - yet that assumption can not be verified scientifically - that’s odd. Don’t get me wrong - I love science, but it was never meant to explain everything.

Hubriss:

They depend on a physical brain so as far as we know, they are physical.

What you mean to say is you are entirely unaware whether ideas exist apart from the physical brain BECAUSE SCIENCE HAS NO WAY OF DETERMINING THIS and so, IF you wish to limit all reality to what is observable scientifically, then you must concluded that they do not exist. Lets just be a little more honest about your conclusions, no?
In addition, the fact that we can observe a relationship between ideas and the physical body simply does not tell us anything about their existence apart from the physical body - you have never established the “existence” of an idea scientifically even when the body is functioning, let alone when it isn’t.

Hubriss:

Even if written on paper it is useless unless a brain understands it and puts it to use.

So what? Does usefulness justify or eliminate existence?

Hubriss:

Using your definition of truth, it is an idea, which is physical. Like time or ideas, truth does not “exist.” It is merely a term used by us to explain situations.

Just to be clear, your claim is that, despite the fact that we are discussing it, truth does not actually exist? Sounds to me like you have to force the existence of truth into the category of not existing simply because it is not physical and you have limited your concept of reality to the physical.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Someone once said that to deny the existence of God is to confirm His existence, because one cannot deny something that does not exist. Sounds like one of those Zen things!

 

[Hubriss]

To Rob:

Rather than take the Bible as an inerrant authority to establish the Church, or the Church as an infallible authority to establish the Bible, you can examine first the relative merits of believing whether or not Christ was God.

Alright, well if we start there, we can’t really prove whether or not Jesus actually performed any miracles. We’ll first assume that he did exist according to the bible and whatever. So now we must look at what he said. He was basically a really good guy that was willing to stand up to the authorities and try to get across what he believed in to the people. That’s all you can get from what was said. As for the apostles, yes they suffered and died for what they believed in, but that is no reason at all to believe that Jesus was actually the son of god. An example of people dying for even dumber things than that are all these cults getting people to perform mass suicides, promising for a great reward after their life. Now if people are dumb enough to believe these cult leaders, and willingly kill themselves for some crazy belief some a-hole just made up; it is not too surprising at all that all these people after Jesus did what they did. There are many examples of stuff completely made up that people actually believe in. Take Scientology for example. It was made up by a sci-fi writer, and yet all these people believe it. Also, fortune tellers, palm readers, psychics, even today, there are many people that believe this stuff. THIS is all hard to believe considering people are much more educated these days. Now you may say they do this stuff because the “Devil” influences them. Well I say Bull. And since religion was nothing new back in Jesus’s time, people had no problem just changing faiths, believing in anything that sounds more appealing and reasonable (after all, who wants to believe in a god that will chuck a lightning bolt down from the sky and fry your butt if you piss him off?).

What do you mean by Trilemma? Mystery of the Trinity? How does that have anything to do with conferming Jesus was God? You’d have to first assume that there was a god.

To Pax:

The problem for you, however, is that this scientific “law” cannot be proven. You seem unbothered by this fact and readily accept this from the scientific community. You give this unprovable scientific claim and many others associated with science a weight they do not deserve.

I agree with you that “in every documented case/test* 100% of the time this has been proven to be true.”*

You agree so what’s the matter?

By the same token you need to admit that everything about Jesus and his miracles, including his resurrection from the dead, was amply proven by eyewitness testimony and sealed by the blood of the martyrs that would not deny what they witnessed.

No, I do not.

Their observations and witness are just as valid as the scientific observations made by people in lab coats looking through microscopes.

No, they are not. If I do that, then I would have no idea what to think. Because then if I took their word for it that they were true, I would have to do the same for every other religion, and that would get me no where. You assume that everyone has the same amount of integrity, which no, they definitely do not. People 2000 years ago were not nearly intelligent as we are now, nor is there anything keeping them from not telling the truth, and even less of a chance they even know the truth.

Moreover, I doubt that we would find many in lab coats suffering death by martyrdom for their theories on the origin of the cosmos.

No, you wouldn’t find many, but then again they don’t believe they will gain anything when they are dead, they know they lose everything, and that’s it. So why waste it? But yes, there are people that will want man kind to know the truth and will be willing to die for it (kind of like Jesus and his apostles probably were, except they would be on a lesser degree of commitment since they think that it is not the end).

 

[Hubriss]

To Philthy:

Let me ask you a simple question regarding the ability to know truth: If you determine conclusively that we are unable to know truth, have you not at the same time, determined truth?

Yes, there are certain truths like in mathematics, and that we can not know the truth. But I am talking specifically about the truth(singular) of origin of the universe.

False. The Church bears witness to Jesus Christ, and there is proof of his existence.

Eh, not really. It is very likely that he existed, but it is not definite. The question is more about whether or not he was the son of god.

This is false also. Someone could have such an experience, they just couldnt prove it to you - you seem to be equating the inability of demonstration with the inability of occuring.

Prove it. If something can not emit or reflect light, it can not be seen. If something does not make a vibration in the air, it can not be heard. Both of these require something material, as well as the obvious touch, smell, and taste.

Really? Care to prove that a “religionless” society is less orderly?
This is pretty weak really.

Yes, you probably could. Communist Russia is one example.

Your logic is greatly flawed by the incontravertable reality that MOST people throughout the history of mankind had no “church” to emulate and unite them in their thinking. Yet all known civilizations - independently- have held to a belief in some sort of higher being.

It doesn’t have to be an entire society. Religion is passed on from generation to generation through familites. But you are wrong, in most societies before maybe the 17th century, many of the people were united under a version of a single belief. Rome had it’s own pagan religion, England made its own Church of England. Aztecs, Incas, most indian societies had a single religion. Even in America in the colonial times. Many towns had a favored religion, and if you didn’t comply with it, you were an outcast, or cast out.

Your ignorance is beginning to reach full bloom - evolution is accepted by the Church.

Only after it was discovered.

The soul does not “control” the body in a physical way - you need to do some reading from Catholics.

So if I sin, it won’t have any repercussions on my soul in any way?
Of course you beleive it controls the body, you can’t doubt that. It’s the bases for your sacrament of reconciliation.

Much of the writing from early civilizations expresses truth in ways we no longer do - as an allegory or figurative expression.

Translation: Most of what we wrote earlier were just figures of speech. We don’t actually mean there is a god, we just wanted you to act a certain way. But it is the truth that you should be good.

 

[Hubriss]

To Philthy (cont.):

Sorry, but the burden would be upon you to “show” us an idea, and verify it scientifically. Can you do that? Why not? Which portion of an idea escapes science? Most especially, you need to explain how UNNATURAL ideas such as Justice and Mercy form from NATURAL processes and then explain how they possibly could produce genetic evolutionary progress in a natural world. Go for it!

Ok, here’s a start. There is a procedure done on people who have frequent and painful annurisms(I think that’s what they were) in the brainl. This procedure is meant to reduce the frequency and the magnitude of these pains. What they do is cut the Corpus Collossum which is a row of nerves attaching our left and right hemispheres. They have done some experiments on these people who have gone through this surgery and have had some interesting results. In one test they tell a subject to look directly at a dot directly in front of them. They then place an object in their Left field of vision and ask them to describe it. What is interesting is that they can not. For some reason they can not describe what they are seeing. They see it, and understand what it is, but can not say anything about it. That is because most people’s section of the brain that controls speech is in their left hemisphere. When they see the object, their right hemisphere recognizes what it is, but it can not relay the information back over to the left side since the nerves that were connecting the two hemispheres was severed. This proves that there is no “soul” that connects objects with ideas and thoughts and words. These ideas depend on the brain, which provides strong evidence that ideas are not immaterial.

What you mean to say is you are entirely unaware whether ideas exist apart from the physical brain BECAUSE SCIENCE HAS NO WAY OF DETERMINING THIS and so, IF you wish to limit all reality to what is observable scientifically, then you must concluded that they do not exist. Lets just be a little more honest about your conclusions, no?

Science does have a way of determining this as you can see in my example above. The problem is that it is hard to find someone willing to let their brain torn up, examined, performed experiments on, While they are Alive. What we can do with animals is limited because of the animal rights people, and also our technology. This may come as a shock to you but when we take apart a brain, we’re sometimes not too sure of how to put it back together again.

Just to be clear, your claim is that, despite the fact that we are discussing it, truth does not actually exist? Sounds to me like you have to force the existence of truth into the category of not existing simply because it is not physical and you have limited your concept of reality to the physical.

Sounds to me like you have to think about what people say before you make assumptions. I said that ideas do not exist, but there are ideas, but they do not “exist” seperate from the brain. There is time as we use it in our perception of the universe, but it does not “exist” in itself. I did not say there is no such thing as something that is true in the universe. I related truth to time and ideas in that sense. Whoever I was responding to was using the word truth as though it had an existence. For example, if someone were to say “God is Truth,” would be meaning that truth is an existing thing, when I say it is only an idea.

PLEASE people. Try to read and understand whatever I am saying in the context of whatever I am replying to.

 

[RobNY]

Hubriss:

To Rob:

Alright, well if we start there, we can’t really prove whether or not Jesus actually performed any miracles. We’ll first assume that he did exist according to the bible and whatever.

Well, the miracle we’re aiming at is the Resurrection.

So now we must look at what he said. He was basically a really good guy that was willing to stand up to the authorities and try to get across what he believed in to the people. That’s all you can get from what was said.

Who also claimed he was God. We’ll get back to this in a sec.

As for the apostles, yes they suffered and died for what they believed in, but that is no reason at all to believe that Jesus was actually the son of god. An example of people dying for even dumber things than that are all these cults getting people to perform mass suicides, promising for a great reward after their life.

Give me the exact details of these things and I’ll tell you how they’re different.

Realize that they claimed that Jesus died, rose from the dead, and was God. They claimed *that *because they claimed to have witnessed it. And they died for that. This shows that their testimony of the Resurrection is solid. If it was just a couple, but most all of them…

Now if people are dumb enough to believe these cult leaders, and willingly kill themselves for some crazy belief some a-hole just made up; it is not too surprising at all that all these people after Jesus did what they did. There are many examples of stuff completely made up that people actually believe in.

I’d prefer if you took the examples specifically as they occured, because I’m only arguing against something I don’t really know now. But, this is different. Usually these cults are led by one insane leader. It’s not a stretch to have one insane leader doing something. It’s different to claim that there were 11 insane leaders who all claimed to see Jesus resurrected and yet all had the same exact hallucinations.

Take Scientology for example. It was made up by a sci-fi writer, and yet all these people believe it. Also, fortune tellers, palm readers, psychics, even today, there are many people that believe this stuff. THIS is all hard to believe considering people are much more educated these days.

This argument applies to the founders. In the first place, it is almost certain that L. Ron Hubbard was not doing this seriously. In the second place, the later generations operate on the actions of the later generations. These later generations don’t believe scientology because they are giving their lives for it. To the contrary, they use it to accomodate to a hedonistic society. By contrast, Christians had only death to face by embracing christianity. Early Scientologists were not in fear of death for their beliefs, let alone did they go and seek martyrdom.

Now you may say they do this stuff because the “Devil” influences them. Well I say Bull.

I wasn’t going to say that.

And since religion was nothing new back in Jesus’s time, people had no problem just changing faiths, believing in anything that sounds more appealing and reasonable (after all, who wants to believe in a god that will chuck a lightning bolt down from the sky and fry your butt if you piss him off?).

No one at the time really did believe in Zeus. This is distinct from devout Jews changing their cherished faith and tradition on a dime. It’s a big leap from devout Jew to Christian, unless Christ is God.

What do you mean by Trilemma? Mystery of the Trinity? How does that have anything to do with conferming Jesus was God? You’d have to first assume that there was a god.

Jesus was a Liar, Lord or Lunatic.

Like you said, Jesus was a good man. Examine his character as exposed in Scripture. You realize that he’s a good man. He shows deep love, compassion, sincerity, piercing insight, and is a superb moral teacher. He is a good man. But he also claims he is God. Now either this is true or false. If true, Jesus is God. If false, Jesus is a liar or insane-- evil or mentally bad (insane). From the portrayal of Jesus, I think it is obvious he was not insane. What insane man acts as Jesus did? What insane man has the clarity of Jesus? And this isn’t just a minor insanity. You are crazy if you are a man and you claim you are someone else, and more crazy if you are a man and claim you are say, a rock. But you are certifiable if you claim that you are God, you know, the difference between finite and infinite. As for Jesus being a liar, I don’t find that very compelling either. The first thing you said about him was that he was a really good guy, and really good guys don’t lie.

 

[Pax]

Hubriss,

Your comments concerning Jesus and his miracles was shallow and inadequate. Equating the eyewitness testimony of over 500 people who saw Jesus after the resurrection with goofy cults is not logical or intellectually honest.

I have a couple of questions for you.

What would you like the truth to be? God exists, or he does not exist?

If you have a desired preference, then why would you desire that answer to be the true one?

 

[Hubriss]

To Rob:

Well, the miracle we’re aiming at is the Resurrection.

Now, there is hardly any evidence at all of Jesus’s resurrection. When he was reincarnated he looked totally different as said in the bible. This is much easier to lie or over exagerate about by the writers since all we have to base it on is their word for it.

Give me the exact details of these things and I’ll tell you how they’re different.

Your response to my statement about mass suicides.

My point is that people will believe in anything, and are willing to die for things others tell them about, with out any real proof whatsoever.

Realize that they claimed that Jesus died, rose from the dead, and was God. They claimed that because they claimed to have witnessed it. And they died for that.

It is very likely that Jesus did not resurrect, that the apostle’s hope and loss of their friend caused them to believe that their mentor had come back. That’s why they have the story of “doubting Thomas,” to try and wave off that it probably was just some other guy, or other person who had seen or known Jesus, kind of consoling the apostles. When he left, Mary left. This is a much more simple and thousands times more likely than Jesus being God.

All of this is much more believable however, if you already have a pre-existing inclination to believing in an after life. Or if you were brought up to believe it.

If it was just a couple, but most all of them…

It only takes a few or even one person to rouse up a group. Then that group rouses everyone else.

This argument applies to the founders. In the first place, it is almost certain that L. Ron Hubbard was not doing this seriously.

Oh, he was doing it seriously. It was his scheme to get rich quick.

No one at the time really did believe in Zeus.

OH REALLY? How do you know that? Yes… they did believe in Zeus. It took them 300 more years to give that up. But if they really didn’t, then that just supports the fact that Catholics were only persecuted back then because the Jews asked it of the empire because they were threatening the Jewish religion. (Who do you think spread all the rumors?)

This is distinct from devout Jews changing their cherished faith and tradition on a dime.

So, what? you think some Jews weren’t happy with what the elite priests were doing? Making the people perform all these rituals while reaping all the profit?

It’s a big leap from devout Jew to Christian, unless Christ is God.

No it wasn’t. They believed Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy. They didn’t even consider it a change in their religion (if they even really believed it.)

Jesus was a Liar, Lord or Lunatic.

Like you said, Jesus was a good man. Examine his character as exposed in Scripture. You realize that he’s a good man. He shows deep love, compassion, sincerity, piercing insight, and is a superb moral teacher. He is a good man. But he also claims he is God. Now either this is true or false. If true, Jesus is God. If false, Jesus is a liar or insane-- evil or mentally bad (insane). From the portrayal of Jesus, I think it is obvious he was not insane. What insane man acts as Jesus did? What insane man has the clarity of Jesus? And this isn’t just a minor insanity. You are crazy if you are a man and you claim you are someone else, and more crazy if you are a man and claim you are say, a rock. But you are certifiable if you claim that you are God, you know, the difference between finite and infinite. As for Jesus being a liar, I don’t find that very compelling either. The first thing you said about him was that he was a really good guy, and really good guys don’t lie.

I’d say liar, but so what? The Priests were lying, he had to fight back. Just because he was a good guy doesn’t mean he never lied or did anything wrong. He was a really devout guy, dying for what he believed in, for the good of the people. He could have also been just a little crazy.

 

[Hubriss]

To Pax:

Your comments concerning Jesus and his miracles was shallow and inadequate. Equating the eyewitness testimony of over 500 people who saw Jesus after the resurrection with goofy cults is not logical or intellectually honest.

Not logical? Not intellectually honest? So you say it’s not logical or intellectually honest to determine all the possible explanations and think about which one is more likely? Being illogical and not intellectually honest is not taking into account any alternative explanations. Testimony of over 500 people? Did the bible tell you that?

What would you like the truth to be? God exists, or he does not exist?

Of course I would rather have it be that there was a god (most people would). But as I’ve said before, no matter how much I want or could hope for there to be an afterlife, it is no good reason to believe just because I Want to. As I’ve said before, emotions are not a basis for determining truth. It is just that there is no other good reason to believe besides that.

If you have a desired preference, then why would you desire that answer to be the true one?

As I said, I would think it were awsome and great to have something after this life that is eternal and good and whatever. Many people fall into this trap. It is one of the strongest reasons why there is religion in the world.

 

[LegionofMary]

The scribes and the pharisees wanted proof that Jesus was who he claimed to be. But they already knew of the miracles that Jesus performed. Christ knew that performing more miracles was not going to change the minds and hearts of these people.

The bottom line is this…Faith. The scribes and Pharisees did not have it.

We are in the season of Lent. If you genuinely are seeking truth, I would suggest you fast the next forty days, just as the people in Ninevah did. Perhaps give up to logically and intelligently trying to disprove the possible existence of God as part of your act of fasting. Those people in Ninevah were rewarded for their obedience in giving up their evil ways and fasting,they displayed true sorrow for the sins they committed so they could experience the compassion and love of God in their lives. This act of obedience is what faith does.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

 

[Pax]

Hubriss:

To Pax:

Not logical? Not intellectually honest? So you say it’s not logical or intellectually honest to determine all the possible explanations and think about which one is more likely? Being illogical and not intellectually honest is not taking into account any alternative explanations. Testimony of over 500 people? Did the bible tell you that?.

It is not intellectually honest to compare the miracles of Jesus and the eyewitness testimony of the 500 people that saw Jesus after the resurrection with whacky cults. You offered no other alternatives and you did not determine all of the possible explanations. Moreover, the comparison is not the most likely explanation. If you think that believers have not thought over the possibilities and alternatives then you underestimate even the most basic intelligence of the “average” person.

Hubriss:

Of course I would rather have it be that there was a god (most people would). But as I’ve said before, no matter how much I want or could hope for there to be an afterlife, it is no good reason to believe just because I Want to. As I’ve said before, emotions are not a basis for determining truth. It is just that there is no other good reason to believe besides that.

I am not suggesting that emotions have anything to do with believing and I am not suggesting that emotions are a basis for determining the truth. At this point in the discussion I do not believe that you really want the truth…that is if the truth means that God does exist. There are many good reasons to believe but I think that you in some way or another “prefer” other alternatives. I say this based soley on your posts and not simply because you are agnostic. One of your opening statements about “our origins being from space aliens” is just one example of why I believe you have a preference. There isn’t even a shred of evidence for this reasoning, but you seem to “like” that idea as opposed to the existence of a creator.

Hubriss:

As I said, I would think it were awsome and great to have something after this life that is eternal and good and whatever. Many people fall into this trap. It is one of the strongest reasons why there is religion in the world.

You have just stated an opinion that has no basis in fact. If you wish to make such a claim then you need to provide data to prove it. Let me demonstrate the problem of merely stating it. Turn it around and apply this kind of statement to your position.

Try this on for size:
“As I said, I would think it was awesome and great if there were no God…then I would be free to do whatever I wanted. Many people fall into this trap. It is one of the strongest reasons why there is atheism and agnosticism in this world.”

You may disagree but I think you need to reconsider the miracles of Jesus. You simply blow them off as if they did not happen because they are in “the bible.” You need to produce some historical data that clearly refutes the claims about Jesus miracles and the eyewitness accounts. Simply dismissing them because you do not believe doesn’t cut it. As I pointed out in an earlier post, even the Jewish historian Josephus called Jesus a “miracle worker.”

 

[hurst]

Hubriss:

Of course I would rather have it be that there was a god (most people would). But as I’ve said before, no matter how much I want or could hope for there to be an afterlife, it is no good reason to believe just because I Want to.

It seems to me that once we “want” something, we already believe in it. So the existence of something, even if only as an idea, precedes our ability to want it.

Hubriss:

As I’ve said before, emotions are not a basis for determining truth. It is just that there is no other good reason to believe besides that.

Wanting something is not an emotion, otherwise what do you call your wanting to know the truth? And you are seeking because you believe it is to be had - otherwise why bother.

Hubriss:

As I said, I would think it were awsome and great to have something after this life that is eternal and good and whatever. Many people fall into this trap. It is one of the strongest reasons why there is religion in the world.

Why do you think it is a trap? In fact, it is something we must aspire to, and strive after. It is more like a mountain we must climb, rather than a trap we fall into. That this is so is shown by the large number of people who are making no effort to improve their moral behavior. Writings on the spiritual life testify to the effort one must put forth to overcome worldliness, lust, and malice, etc. The trap is to stop striving for what one really wants, and to fall into giving in to one’s sensual appetites, which do not give lasting satisfaction, and which take us in the opposite direction pointed out by our eternal desires for purity, goodness, self-control, and more.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hubriss:

How do you know ideas are not physical? They depend on a physical brain so as far as we know, they are physical.

We can know they aren’t physical, precisely because our brain is physical. Our brain does not already contain all our thoughts, just as the alphabet does not already contain all words. It takes something outside of it to organize the physical into something representing a concept.

Just today I was playing legos with my son, and we have a large container of them. I was building something, and would occasionally go to the box to get a particular piece. When I needed a yellow piece, I filtered what I saw and ignored anything not yellow. When I needed a flat piece, I ignored anything not flat. As I was doing this, I realized that my brain, though used to filter and see, was not the actual source of itself choosing to filter or see a particular thing or not. It could not have been part of the brain, especially since the brain was previously active in something else. The brain must be moved by something not already in the brain, which I attribute to my spiritual soul. The soul is special in that it has the ability to reflect on itself.

Hubriss:

Even if written on paper it is useless unless a brain understands it and puts it to use.

But if it were purely physical, all brains would not only see it the same way, but also interpret it the same way. But that is not the case.

Hubriss:

Using your definition of truth, it is an idea, which is physical. Like time or ideas, truth does not “exist.” It is merely a term used by us to explain situations.

So now you are saying there is no such thing as truth… So why believe yourself? Have you not fallen into the trap of following the instincts of your physical body without any control? But once you become addicted to a substance, you lose control to do otherwise. Is that what you want?

Hubriss:

Ah but this is simply wrong. When a child is born and begins on its earliest stages in life, it has the Potential to learn ideas and things that are true. All the brain matter needed is there, what is only required is the shaping and forming which is accomplished through, as you said, experience and/or training. As the child grows, new brain matter will be formed to compensate for the many new ideas it will encounter until its death.

If it is all there, then nothing new should be needed.

I really don’t think you care about all the contradictions in your statements and beliefs. Perhaps God has handed you over to your depravity to let you see for yourself where it will take you. It is a just punishment for those of us who reject His grace and purpose.

hurst

 

[RobNY]

Hubriss:

To Rob:

Now, there is hardly any evidence at all of Jesus’s resurrection. When he was reincarnated he looked totally different as said in the bible. This is much easier to lie or over exagerate about by the writers since all we have to base it on is their word for it.

Well, his body had to have gone somewhere. It wasn’t sitting in the tomb, that’s for sure. The easiest disproof of a Jesus is resurrected philosophy would have been to open the tomb, show the body was there, and poof, Christianity is dead. The Jews wouldn’t have helped anyone get the body out, certainly. The Roman soldiers wouldn’t have. Being slack on your duty could mean death. And in any case, moving a giant stone isn’t something you do stealthily, even if you manage to catch these guards at unawares. But that switches into conspiracy theory.

He was different after his Resurrection, as in, his glorified body indeed.

Your response to my statement about mass suicides.

My point is that people will believe in anything, and are willing to die for things others tell them about, with out any real proof whatsoever.

But the difference is that these people claimed to have witnessed the resurrection. There’s a difference between people believing on little proof and on much proof. Either way, people don’t willingly go to martyrdom for a knowing lie. In the case of the mass suicides, they may sincerely believe it is true, but they do it with extremely little proof. The difference between them and the apostles is that the apostles had only the greatest level of proof. They would personally know whether or not Jesus had really resurrected, because they would have witnessed it. If they hadn’t witnessed it, then they were flat out liars, and there is no way to explain their behavior. If it was an hallucination, then there is no way to explain how all of the apostles had the same halluncination (and also, by the gospel accounts, how the ‘hallucination’ ate food).

It is very likely that Jesus did not resurrect, that the apostle’s hope and loss of their friend caused them to believe that their mentor had come back. That’s why they have the story of “doubting Thomas,” to try and wave off that it probably was just some other guy, or other person who had seen or known Jesus, kind of consoling the apostles. When he left, Mary left. This is a much more simple and thousands times more likely than Jesus being God.

So all of the apostles were hallucinating the same exact hallucination? Clearly this is far more incredible.

All of this is much more believable however, if you already have a pre-existing inclination to believing in an after life. Or if you were brought up to believe it.

You refute your own argument by example. You utterly reject the supernatural and the afterlife. It is just as possible for someone raised a theist to be a skeptic.

It only takes a few or even one person to rouse up a group. Then that group rouses everyone else.

But the apostles were the leaders. If it was a conspiracy then they would have all be in on it. And yet, they willingly went to their deaths nontheless, for a conspiracy and a lie.

Oh, he was doing it seriously. It was his scheme to get rich quick.

You know very well that this isn’t what I meant. He didn’t seriously believe what he was doing, i.e., that it was true. Yes, he was serious about getting rich. Contrast this to the apostles who only had their families, riches and lives to lose by being Christians.

OH REALLY? How do you know that? Yes… they did believe in Zeus. It took them 300 more years to give that up.

No one really took the greek gods seriously at the time, as far as I know. I could be wrong of course, but it’s such a minor point I couldn’t care less.

But if they really didn’t, then that just supports the fact that Catholics were only persecuted back then because the Jews asked it of the empire because they were threatening the Jewish religion. (Who do you think spread all the rumors?)

It’s always the Jews spreading dirty rumors. They even caused the Black Death by poisoning the wells.