The importance and relevance of faith to logic

[Mirdath]

Okay, instead of taking turns I will simply address different points on different sides, firstly, if the backbone of your faith is that the leader of your faith is going to die and come back after a bit, then if he does not come back after a bit, I’m quite certain that your faith would then be shaken enough to not go to the ends of the earth to proclaim his rise. I mean, you might do it out of spite just to make everyone else suffer the same pain, but really?

I do not think the Resurrection was an actual resurrection from the dead. That doesn’t mean the gospels are complete horsepuckey from Golgotha onward – just that I think it’s likely that something rather more mundane happened. There’s no want of explanations: Muslims say the Romans crucified an impostor, others say he might not have actually died died (which, knowing how the Romans operated, I personally find unlikely… they were damn good at killing people for keeps), and so on and so forth. Without a time machine, who knows? ‘Dude rose from the dead!’ is an extraordinary claim, isn’t it? You wouldn’t have a religion if not for that. Why give the extraordinary claim priority over the more mundane explanations?

Bottom line, yeah, some weird things went down then, but that doesn’t mean we have to get all supernatural about it.

See, I get what you mean about how you are not denying that the writers of the gospels believed what they preached, but clearly Holy_wood didn’t. So if you could clarify that you think they believed BUT that doesn’t make what they said true that would be good.

I think I did that in my last response to holy_wood, but if not, consider it done!

Speaking of the gospels, the point was brought up a bit earlier by holy_wood that the bible is not a single document of historical reference to Jesus as someone who rose from the dead, but four.

And I haven’t said otherwise. There’re more if you count the non-canonical gospels as well (the gnostic gospels are particularly fun reads).

Also, he didn’t have to have a big ego, but he definitely would have been a liar in ANY of the cases Mirdath, not knowing you’re lying still makes you a liar.

I would argue otherwise: it makes you mistaken.

Or Metaphysics (not exactly a religion, but yeah).

Metaphysics is just the name for the thing we’re sitting around discussing on an internet forum in our copious free time

As for the evolutionary purpose, I would disagree, if Darwinism is correct, then everything we can do or think has an evolutionary purpose to it.

The Darwin Awards aside, last I checked evolution was more about physical characteristics and adaptation to environment, no? I don’t see what believing in a deity has to do with that, especially considering that theists and non-theists alike survive and thrive.

 

[holy_wood]

You’re wrong there too – she followed Muhammad herself, and had the same opportunity to discover the truth of his preaching as the apostles did. Do your homework!

Believing and knowing are two different things. She believed he Mohammad’s gospel the Apostles would have known what they were preaching was a lie or not.

Many of the early ones were, yeah, but people who die trying to conquer haven’t conquered yet.

At least you got my point. They technically were martyrs for the faith just like the hijackers of 9/11. They were maryrs for Islam even though there goal, America’s defeat, has not come to fruition yet.

I went over this when I talked about the trilemma. Can you show that my fourth option is unquestionably invalid, or that there is no possibility for a fifth, sixth, and more?

No, but I can show the flaws in your options and demonstrate the greater improbability of the other options. All things are possible but some of them are near infinitesimally so.

You sound more like a Cathar than a Catholic there! Saints are not perfect; they are simply Not As Bad, to grossly oversimplify things. In Catholic teaching, the capital-S Saints are Saints by the grace of God and in spite of their imperfections, not because they have no imperfections.

Yes they are. They are made so through purgatory. You should do your homework.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a “purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven,” which is experienced by those “who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” (CCC 1030). It notes that “this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1031).

The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven.

Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean, but actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely “covered,” if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean.

Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that “nothing unclean shall enter heaven.” From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if “covered,” remains a dirty soul and isn’t fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or “purged” of its remaining imperfections.

Why should I fear death? I used to be afraid, much as I would guess you and most people are, but having come amazingly close to it a few times, it has no hold over me. All things end, and this is as it should be.

As for pleasures of the flesh, dude, my lifestyle is way closer to ascetic than you seem to think. I enjoy many things in moderation – a drink, a smoke, art, good food, just like anyone else – I’m happily married, and my sex life appears to be more in line with The Catholic Way than that of anyone who’s posted a thread about sex here! I am a heathen, but ‘heathen’ and ‘hedonist’ are most closely linked by dictionary proximity, not definition.

Like I said apathy and contentment. I can’t argue with someone who is content with there existence and apathetic towards the divine. Once you get tired of these things and not only search but realize the need for a higher power then maybe faith will take hold.

 

[Mirdath]

Believing and knowing are two different things. She believed he Mohammad’s gospel the Apostles would have known what they were preaching was a lie or not.

What did the disciples who studied at Jesus’ feet have the opportunity to know that the disciples who studied at Muhammad’s did not, ignoring petty distinctions (at least in this line of discussion) like resurrection?

No, but I can show the flaws in your options and demonstrate the greater improbability of the other options. All things are possible but some of them are near infinitesimally so.

Then stop blithering on and show it!

Yes they are. They are made so through purgatory. You should do your homework.

They are not perfect in this life, which is what you had said, or at least appeared to be saying. That is one of the many heresies of the Cathars, not a Catholic teaching.

Like I said apathy and contentment. I can’t argue with someone who is content with there existence and apathetic towards the divine. Once you get tired of these things and not only search but realize the need for a higher power then maybe faith will take hold.

Yet you do it anyway, and I debate the unsatisfied and desperate for the fun of it May you reach contentment and calm, higher power or no!

 

[holy_wood]

What did the disciples who studied at Jesus’ feet have the opportunity to know that the disciples who studied at Muhammad’s did not, ignoring petty distinctions (at least in this line of discussion) like resurrection?

The Apostles could prove Jesus’ claims whereas Mohammad’s followers could not. They KNEW if the ressurection happened or not whereas Mohammad’s followers relied only on faith. A faith which makes claims that contradicts verifyable historical and scientific facts.

Then stop blithering on and show it!

I thought I already did.

They are not perfect in this life, which is what you had said, or at least appeared to be saying. That is one of the many heresies of the Cathars, not a Catholic teaching.

Yeah, I know they are not perfect in life but Thomas’ lack of faith and need for proof means he was cursed, a fool, by the Bibles standards. He would not accept the testimony of his friends. To make an analogy, if all your friends who you trust with your life said they saw a ghost or an alien would you believe them if you knew for sure they were not yanking our chain?

Yet you do it anyway, and I debate the unsatisfied and desperate for the fun of it May you reach contentment and calm, higher power or no!

I guess i’m a glutton for punishment.

 

[Mirdath]

The Apostles could prove Jesus’ claims whereas Mohammad’s followers could not. They KNEW if the ressurection happened or not whereas Mohammad’s followers relied only on faith. A faith which makes claims that contradicts verifyable historical and scientific facts.

If they could prove it, I’d be a Christian.

I am not a Christian.

I thought I already did.

You have done nothing to actually demonstrate that Jesus and the apostles could not have been more-or-less ordinary men out of their depth in extraordinary circumstances – only dismissed the possibility out of hand without offering any substance at all.

Yeah, I know they are not perfect in life but Thomas’ lack of faith and need for proof means he was cursed, a fool, by the Bibles standards. He would not accept the testimony of his friends. To make an analogy, if all your friends who you trust with your life said they saw a ghost or an alien would you believe them if you knew for sure they were not yanking our chain?

I’m not sure calling foolishness a curse will fly so well in a faith that has a long tradition of being ‘fools for Christ’. Nor is healthy skepticism all that frowned upon – sure, Thomas got served by Jesus for it, but for all that, he was the first to say ‘my Lord and my God’, if you’ll recall.

 

[holy_wood]

If they could prove it, I’d be a Christian.

I am not a Christian.

Awe, any objective proof will be interpreted subjectively. If ones standards are too high they won’t believe anything, if your standards too low one will believe in wacky thing under the sun.

My point is that the Apostles and the deciples all knew if what they were teaching was false or not. I have the faith to believe that they were not all sharing a group hysteria with visions of Jesus, nor do I think they were liars.

I read their writers and they don’t come off as deceivers or wackos. I guess this is where we differ.

You have done nothing to actually demonstrate that Jesus and the apostles could not have been more-or-less ordinary men out of their depth in extraordinary circumstances – only dismissed the possibility out of hand without offering any substance at all.

Lets look at the circumstances. Jesus said he was the Messiah (granted not very uncommon for the time period), he said he was God (unprecedented), He said he could forgive sins (unprecedented), ect., ect. He was not ordinary. He was either lying, insane or telling the truth.

The Apostles were pretty normal they followed a guy who they thought would bring about a physical kingdom on Earth. Their Master got crucified and humiliated but 43 days later they rise up to proclaim him risen.

I dismissed it because ordinary men do not go around saying a guy did miracles and rose from the dead. They were either telling the truth, misinterpreted, liars, or insane.

I’m not sure calling foolishness a curse will fly so well in a faith that has a long tradition of being ‘fools for Christ’. Nor is healthy skepticism all that frowned upon – sure, Thomas got served by Jesus for it, but for all that, he was the first to say ‘my Lord and my God’, if you’ll recall.

The Bible calls those who neither know or seek God fools and Thomas was technically a fool for he knew not that Jesus was God nor did he inquire as to why his friends would be trying to decieve him into this belief.

A healthy skepticism is good but to a willful skepticism when the truth is staring you in the face should be frowned upon.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Okay, instead of taking turns I will simply address different points on different sides, firstly, if the backbone of your faith is that the leader of your faith is going to die and come back after a bit, then if he does not come back after a bit, I’m quite certain that your faith would then be shaken enough to not go to the ends of the earth to proclaim his rise. I mean, you might do it out of spite just to make everyone else suffer the same pain, but really?

Having been born after the fact it is the fact of His death and promise of His return. ‘A bit’ of time might need to be quantified. I think it safe to assume if mandated worship was the intent of our existance God would have not given us free will so consequently the purpose of our life and existance might be simply to live.

The case of the slave woman isn’t the same, Muhammad was a mortal, not a god, he never performed god like acts, he did bring with him god’s messages but anyone can do that, just like anyone could perform magic tricks to fool their followers (this goes for christ and Muhammad). However, dying and then coming back is no magic trick at all. If he didn’t come back then he simply was not the son of god, meaning they would have known their faith was a lie.

Fact is Mohammed did not know who gave scared him to the point of trying to kill himself at his first call. Logic fails the Moslem faith it was Gabriel so his messege can reasonably be rejected in full.

Also, this goes for anybody posting here, if you have an idea or argument that goes against someone else’s, can you please explain it? The point of this thread is clarity on both sides. See, I get what you mean about how you are not denying that the writers of the gospels believed what they preached, but clearly Holy_wood didn’t. So if you could clarify that you think they believed BUT that doesn’t make what they said true that would be good.

Logic also concludes Christianty is more than just an idea formed by a dozen Jews nearly 2000 years ago and Scripture is proof. Peter and Paul are real historical figures and their death 30 years after Christ in Rome is hard to explain if Christ did not exist evident by the success of their preaching.

Speaking of the gospels, the point was brought up a bit earlier by holy_wood that the bible is not a single document of historical reference to Jesus as someone who rose from the dead, but four. These four documents are still in the same text however, and can be considered part of the religious canon of christianity, of which there is only one. John didn’t write any other things about Jesus, nor did Luke or any of them, if he had published a second text then that would be useful, though it would still be one of the only four authors who wrote of his life during his time. At the same time they all wrote of him AFTER he supposedly died, and there is no way of knowing that they even ever met him as there’s nothing else to go by.

Pauls letters seemingly pre-date the Gospels and the author of Luke also wrote Acts. I think it reasonable to conclude the early Church (first 50 years after Christ) it was a growing community under persecution and the fact most of the Apostles are largely considered unlearned that would have help in putting to pen their words for members of the Christian communitiy. It took 20 years for a publication of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius so timing of a printed book after an event in the first century didn’t happen overnight.

Also, he didn’t have to have a big ego, but he definitely would have been a liar in ANY of the cases Mirdath, not knowing you’re lying still makes you a liar. Regardless, this doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have died for his lie. He may have genuinely thought that he would be coming back, or genuinely thought that after he died, many people would believe in him because he had convinced the 11 jews enough that they would tell his story even if he didn’t come back. Or maybe he was just a schizo. And Mirdath’s first proposition still stands, maybe he was a just an all round normal guy who got caught up in something big.

It would be one thing if Jesus was a lunatic and died in lunacy as it would most likely have ended there as it had with so many other false gods. The Gospels record Peters infidelity to faith in Jesus numerous times so his fidelity after His death is harder to explain.

As for the faith deal, what about Unitarian Universalism? Or Pantheism? Or Metaphysics (not exactly a religion, but yeah).

Faith should have some basis in logic or else it cannot be judged as having some elements of simple truth such as those thinsg we can determine outside of a religious belief. Many things in the Gospels are proved geogaphically as well as historically like who the Roman governor was at the time, teh Roamn census, the Roman emporer, and the Jewish leaders.

As for the evolutionary purpose, I would disagree, if Darwinism is correct, then everything we can do or think has an evolutionary purpose to it. It may be flawed, like the flatfish’s deformed skull, but it still has an evolutionary purpose. Hope and faith are different to you, because it seems to me that you consider faith in something you know nothing about and faith in something you know very little about different things. There have been times in history where people knew absolutely nothing about the outcome of the action they were performing, leaps of faith. Tesla had no idea what the rearranging of wires would do, sure he theorized as anyone could, but at the time there was no way of knowing you could reverse the flow of current. For all he knew it could kill him (which it could, but as he found that was less likely). Galvani didn’t know what sticking pieces of metal on dead bodies would do at all, the only documented cases back then of electrical interaction resulted in death, not any form of medical enlightenment. Fermi certainly didn’t know ANYTHING about sustained nuclear reactions besides “they are really really powerful and probably hurt” which I really wouldn’t count as “very little”.

Each of those individuals didn’t just do things in blind faith but used reason and logic to estimate the like result from previous experiments and failures. Death is pretty permanent so those Christians who willingly giving up their life for this belief did so with some knowlege of its veracity.

As you said, anything is possible, even things that seemingly have no chance. As we have seen in Chaos Theory, Quantum field theory and electrodynamics, sometimes even the most random, virtually impossible things can occur twice, even three times in a row.

Catholicism and logic are compatable. Judaism and logic are as well if Christianity is not considered. Islam and logic are not compatable because Islam denies basic tenets of both Judaism and Christianity. The same for the BoM and any other derivation of that has come off the three major momotheistic faiths that claim Abraham as its Patriarch. The other philosophies of the East don’t deny or challange by name the Abrahamic faiths so they are nearly a different topic all together.

 

[Mirdath]

Awe, any objective proof will be interpreted subjectively. If ones standards are too high they won’t believe anything, if your standards too low one will believe in wacky thing under the sun.

There aren’t any airtight objective proofs. I don’t see why many of the faithful make such a fuss over proofs anyway, considering taming God with logic negates faith – and it’s apparently a Big Deal that one believe without having seen, as you note, Thomas notwithstanding.

Lets look at the circumstances. Jesus said he was the Messiah (granted not very uncommon for the time period), he said he was God (unprecedented), He said he could forgive sins (unprecedented), ect., ect. He was not ordinary. He was either lying, insane or telling the truth.

I did specify ‘more or less’ Jesus was obviously extremely charismatic, one of the greatest orators the world has known (whether one believes in his divinity or not, the Sermon on the Mount remains one of the greatest speeches in history), learned, and literate (not too common then). But that does not invalidate my thesis.

The Apostles were pretty normal they followed a guy who they thought would bring about a physical kingdom on Earth. Their Master got crucified and humiliated but 43 days later they rise up to proclaim him risen.

I dismissed it because ordinary men do not go around saying a guy did miracles and rose from the dead. They were either telling the truth, misinterpreted, liars, or insane.

Or just mistaken, no? We’ve got an entire movement in this country of otherwise ordinary people who think weather balloons and swamp gas are actually alien spaceships or who hare off into the Washington woods looking for sasquatches, with no central unifying force beyond Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Or just mistaken, no? We’ve got an entire movement in this country of otherwise ordinary people who think weather balloons and swamp gas are actually alien spaceships or who hare off into the Washington woods looking for sasquatches, with no central unifying force beyond Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM.

There is enough to suggest something more than swamp gas is responsible for unexplained cattle mutilations and claimed sightings and abductions by rational people. Just because the Church has largely qualified and quantified its theology by the reliability of eye-witness and written accounts, and George Noory/Art Bell have centralized an outlet for paranormal discussion doesn’t make either untrue. I think it must be as much faith to dismiss either as fantasy as it is to accept them.

 

[Mirdath]

There is enough to suggest something more than swamp gas is responsible for unexplained cattle mutilations and claimed sightings and abductions by rational people. Just because the Church has largely qualified and quantified its theology by the reliability of eye-witness and written accounts, and George Noory/Art Bell have centralized an outlet for paranormal discussion doesn’t make either untrue. I think it must be as much faith to dismiss either as fantasy as it is to accept them.

I have to admit I was not expecting that to backfire on me in quite that way :doh2: :hypno:

 

[holy_wood]

There aren’t any airtight objective proofs. I don’t see why many of the faithful make such a fuss over proofs anyway, considering taming God with logic negates faith – and it’s apparently a Big Deal that one believe without having seen, as you note, Thomas notwithstanding.

Applying logic where applicable is not being fussy

" The twofold order of knowledge. – “The Catholic Church”, says the Vatican Council, III, iv, "has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation."

I did specify ‘more or less’ Jesus was obviously extremely charismatic, one of the greatest orators the world has known (whether one believes in his divinity or not, the Sermon on the Mount remains one of the greatest speeches in history), learned, and literate (not too common then). But that does not invalidate my thesis.

Lord, liar or lunitic. These are the three most logical options. It seems that which of the three Jesus was comes down to a matter of interpretation.

I just happen to think that he was Lord.

 

[Mirdath]

Applying logic where applicable is not being fussy

Not taking ‘we have the fullness of truth because we say so’ as anything more than a circular argument is not being fussy either.

Lord, liar or lunitic. These are the three most logical options. It seems that which of the three Jesus was comes down to a matter of interpretation.

I just happen to think that he was Lord.

Show that the option I proposed is unworkable and false on its face, or that other explanations cannot exist. You’ve attempted to get out of doing that at least two or three times now. It’s time to put up or shut up.

 

[cpayne]

I think the fourth option to which you refer is in Post 15 (correct me if I’m wrong).

I don’t buy it, however. Of course, people have died in large numbers for false beliefs. The point of the apostles is that they would be dying for a belief they knew to be false.

One of the characteristics mentioned for the early apostles is that they had to be personal eyewitnesses of the Resurrection. If all 11 knew this belief were false, or if they were somehow “caught up” in the testimony of one or two, I think it unlikely they would be willing to go through their individual deaths.

Again, you might respond, “But they could very well have been mistaken.” Again, however, the events they witnessed to and eventually died for could only be known to be true or false by them. If they were the victims of a mass hallucination (somehow), well, there were several other appearances of Christ in many different ways to many different people.

The most obvious explanation for the appearances of Christ to the apostles is that He actually appeared to them.

This is not a logically deductive argument based on indisputable premises. So, Mirdath, I’m not sure what you’re asking for when you ask to be shown your option is wrong “on the face of it.” What I’m arguing is that it is less likely than the explanation given in the Bible.

If the response is, “No, a Resurrection is much less likely”—that’s begging the question, because that’s precisely the point under dispute.

Here’s my argument in a nutshell: Jesus’ rising from the dead is more likely than that His followers were willing to be tortured and killed for clinging to an odd Resurrection story which they knew to be false.

I’m going to church now. See ya!

 

[Mirdath]

Here’s my argument in a nutshell: Jesus’ rising from the dead is more likely than that His followers were willing to be tortured and killed for clinging to an odd Resurrection story which they knew to be false.

With all respect, violating the laws of nature as we know them is much less plausible than a whole bunch of people being grievously mistaken one way or another. We know people make mistakes, are fallible, are easily directed (even inadvertently) – even, and sometimes especially, in crowds. Isn’t that a far more likely scenario than yours, which necessitates throwing out the book on biology and physics because of a single irreproducible-so-far-as-we-know stunt?

I’m going to church now. See ya!

Have fun!

 

[holy_wood]

With all respect, violating the laws of nature as we know them is much less plausible than a whole bunch of people being grievously mistaken one way or another. We know people make mistakes, are fallible, are easily directed (even inadvertently) – even, and sometimes especially, in crowds. Isn’t that a far more likely scenario than yours, which necessitates throwing out the book on biology and physics because of a single irreproducible-so-far-as-we-know stunt?

No!!!

 

[holy_wood]

Not taking ‘we have the fullness of truth because we say so’ as anything more than a circular argument is not being fussy either.

Kind of like asking how one knows God is good. This would mean judging God, but this would require an outside criteria for judging that God is good and then that criteria must be judged as being authoritative by yet another authority and then that authority must be judged by yet another one in order to validate its trustworthiness but then that…

Its a statement of faith and a trust that God is who he said he is. But one we don’t mind discussing why we are right and you are wrong. We’re not arrogant just confident.

Show that the option I proposed is unworkable and false on its face, or that other explanations cannot exist. You’ve attempted to get out of doing that at least two or three times now. It’s time to put up or shut up.

I don’t believe they are unworkable or the only possible explanations. There are theoretically an infinite number of explanations.

**Here is one for you:
Mary was visited by an alien who impregnated her with a human-alien hybrid in an an experiment to see if the subsequent offspring’s advanced intellect would set humanity toward a socio-evolutionary course to enlightenment. These aliens took on the persona of angels to best explain their intentions to Mary in a manner that she would understand in order to get her consent.

Her child had advanced mental abilities which were interpreted by 1 century Jews as being divine in origin.

And why did Jesus claim he was God. Well he didn’t know he was an alien and with his wacky powers he thought he read the Hebrew scriptures and looked at his other-worldly character and came to the conclusion that he was God (Or maybe the aliens abducted him when he was sleeping and put a chip in his brain that allowed them to speak to him and they told him that they were his Heavenly Father, who knows, the possibilities are endless )

Prophesying his death and ressurection was merely his advanced mental abilities showing his conscious mind the most likely outcome of his path as a Rabbi.

The resurrection and ascension? Simply the alien Jesus, who came back to life do his superior healing abilities (Wolverine like status), being abducted by the pure species aliens with there beaming technology. ect, ect.**

How could I prove this theory as “** unworkable and false on its face”**? If its true, you and I still would deny it because it would have been a single irreproducible-so-far-as-we-know experiment. In the absence of hard proof it would require faith to believe.

What I said was that Lord, liar, lunatic were all the most LOGICAL explanations. Not that they were the only ones.

 

[Mirdath]

No!!!

Hit a nerve, did I? Gonna have to do better than a giant red ‘no’ to make any headway

We’re not arrogant just confident.

Sure thing.

What I said was that Lord, liar, lunatic were all the most LOGICAL explanations. Not that they were the only ones.

No, actually, they are two of the more logical and the single least logical explanation crammed together. You have not demonstrated that logic has anything to do with divinity in the first place; the events you put forth as indicative of divinity violate several natural laws and have not been successfully accomplished before or since; in short, calling the ‘Lord’ part of the trilemma a logical explanation is so wrong it’s not even funny. It is an explanation for the faithful, by the faithful, and logic has not so much as darkened its doorstep.

And you still have not directly addressed my specific explanation other than to set up a strawman of your own and take potshots at that instead.

Sheeze, some days I think I should just change my sig to ‘Kierkegaard was right!’ :yawn:

 

[cpayne]

With all respect, violating the laws of nature as we know them is much less plausible than a whole bunch of people being grievously mistaken one way or another. We know people make mistakes, are fallible, are easily directed (even inadvertently) – even, and sometimes especially, in crowds. Isn’t that a far more likely scenario than yours, which necessitates throwing out the book on biology and physics because of a single irreproducible-so-far-as-we-know stunt?

Well, not if that’s the point under discussion. I think what you mean by “violating the laws of nature as we know them” is what I mean by “miracle.” This sounds much like Hume’s argument: basically, violating the laws of nature doesn’t happen, a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, therefore miracles don’t happen or at least require a lot of favorable evidence.

My point is that this argument begs the question. Of course “violating the laws of nature” is going to be an infrequent occurrence; the question is, Is there a lot of favorable evidence for this particular violation of the laws of nature? I think yes; but whether or not we agree on that, at least I would say that “this miracle probably didn’t happen because miracles are extremely unlikely” is not terribly strong as an argument.

I like Kierkegaard, too (as a necessary philosophical corrective once in a while, sort of like medicine. I prefer Thomas, however, for the philosophical potatoes and gravy).

Now I’m leaving on vacation. The forum will have to struggle along somehow without me for a while. :tiphat:

 

[holy_wood]

Hit a nerve, did I? Gonna have to do better than a giant red ‘no’ to make any headway

No, I was just having some fun and being brief.

No, actually, they are two of the more logical and the single least logical explanation crammed together. You have not demonstrated that logic has anything to do with divinity in the first place; the events you put forth as indicative of divinity violate several natural laws and have not been successfully accomplished before or since; in short, calling the ‘Lord’ part of the trilemma a logical explanation is so wrong it’s not even funny. It is an explanation for the faithful, by the faithful, and logic has not so much as darkened its doorstep.

And you still have not directly addressed my specific explanation other than to set up a strawman of your own and take potshots at that instead.

The trilemma is for unbelievers. We think we are right, we believe an unbiased look at history supports our position. Your theories, although unable to be proved 100% false, to me screams of desperation.

Any answer I give will be challenged and your challenge will be challenged by me and my challenge itself will be challenged by you…It goes on forever. Like I’ve said ones level of proof for the divinity of Christ is subjective. You have not really showed that my theory is false but merely obscured the issue by pointing out that their are an infinite number of other possibilities all of which far much more likely than the dreaded one theory which takes Jesus, the Apostles and thousands of disciples and witnesses at their word.

Have you seen the Matrix, red or blue pill? What is real? If its what you see, hear, taste, smell, and fell then real is nothing more than electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

So how would you prove to someone in the Matrix that there entire reality was an artificial construct and that there real nature was hidden from from them? The only way to do this would be to unplug them or change the program.

This movie is a good analogy to our world and the divine. How does God reveal himself to us. In two ways. We can be unplugged (i.e. die and our souls would meet him in Heaven or depart into Hell…) but by this time it would be to late for anybody to do anything to change their lives.

So God has opted to change the program (i.e. perform miracles). I defer to the previous post for further discussion on this topic?

As for your original objections. To be perfectly honest I am just to lazy to refute them. Also, I’m not sure they can be, I see them on par with my alien Jesus theory.

I don’t have all the information. I just can’t fathom why a man would claim divinity if he wasn’t lying, a lunatic or actually Lord.

One can claim that he was misunderstood but to say that we 2000 years removed from the event understood Jesus better than his Apostles and disciples and 2000 years of learned scholars would, to me, make that individual the personification of presumptuousness and arrogance.

I also don’t believe that all 11 Apostles would suffer persecution and martyrdom for what they know for a fact to be a lie 40 days after their masters crucifixion and 40 days after they abandoned him.

I don’t have all the information. I have merely developed my faith on the information I do have and I refuse to speculate on different theories that I can’t prove. To believe Jesus was a liar rrequires faith, to believe he was a lunatic requires faith and to believe he was who he claimed he was requires faith. It is up to us 2,000 years removed from the event to decide which of the three he was. Any information one uses to make that decision must be taken in its entirety and not cherry-picked in order to suit one particular view.

You Mirdath have developed an elaborate conspiracy to explain the rise of Christendom. I simply don’t believe a conspiracy which yielded no political or monetary gain from the first generation participants or their portage until nearly 4 centuries later would have lasted in the face of opposition from the dominant Jewish and Roman authorities of the time.

I simply don’t have that much faith in conspiracies.

 

[Mirdath]

The trilemma is for unbelievers.

It serves better to reinforce belief, don’t you think? Much like Pascal’s Wager: it’s laughable from an outside perspective, far too narrow, playing dirty on its home turf by intentionally ignoring alternate explanations, and focused on only one way of looking at the possibility of God.

We think we are right, we believe an unbiased look at history supports our position. Your theories, although unable to be proved 100% false, to me screams of desperation.

I think I’m right. One or both of us is wrong. The difference between our stances is that mine doesn’t introduce variables where they have not been demonstrated necessary – in other words, I’m good by William of Occam’s lights.

You have not really showed that my theory is false but merely obscured the issue by pointing out that their are an infinite number of other possibilities all of which far much more likely than the dreaded one theory which takes Jesus, the Apostles and thousands of disciples and witnesses at their word.

If you would prove God, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Have you seen the Matrix, red or blue pill?

Nope.

So how would you prove to someone in the Matrix that there entire reality was an artificial construct and that there real nature was hidden from from them? The only way to do this would be to unplug them or change the program.

If the construct is good enough, you can’t, because unplugging and odd changes to the program are accounted for. Try arguing against solipsism, just for fun. It can’t be done.

So God has opted to change the program (i.e. perform miracles). I defer to the previous post for further discussion on this topic?

How do we know that miracles are performed by God, and not simply mundane things we have not discovered the workings of yet?

As for your original objections. To be perfectly honest I am just to lazy to refute them. Also, I’m not sure they can be, I see them on par with my alien Jesus theory.

Alien Jesus is still more plausible than Divine Jesus, actually. It’s just kinda schlocky, and quite obviously intended as a strawman to distract from my serious suggestion.

Aliens? Sure. The universe is a big place, and we know there’s life in at least one part of it. Could be more, though I have no idea why they’d choose to buzz Bethlehem during Augustus’ reign. If they were going on a Sol system tour, there were many more interesting places to be.

God? Now you’ve gone and postulated an entirely different plane of existence or three to explain your wunderkind. Why does it have to be God?

I don’t have all the information. I have merely developed my faith on the information I do have and I refuse to speculate on different theories that I can’t prove. To believe Jesus was a liar rrequires faith, to believe he was a lunatic requires faith and to believe he was who he claimed he was requires faith.

Two of those choices require far less ‘faith’ of any sort, and none at all in God – and you’re still not counting any others.

You Mirdath have developed an elaborate conspiracy to explain the rise of Christendom.

It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a ‘historical accident’ theory, or something like that. I do not think there was a grand plot to bring out a Messiah. This is just something I have decided is rather more logically plausible than postulating gods and demons, heavens and hells, all to explain one man’s interesting life.