H
Hee_Zen
Guest
There were many people who were called Jesus. It was a very popular name at that time. There is no evidence for all the magic attributed to him.
- Status
I
Ignatius
Guest
The historicity of the specific individual known as Jesus Christ is a well documented historical fact. Denial of the fact of the existence of Jesus Christ is counter to the facts. The vast preponderance accredited, knowledgeable historians will attest to the fact that the existence of Jesus Christ is far more well documented than that of most ancients known to history.
Or Is it that you deny the possibility of miracles, is that the issue?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, no, actually. The reason anything requires “no [further] explanation” is because the explanation lies within it - it is self-explanatory. If no such internal explanation exists, then it requires an explanation. That is precisely the determiner for requiring an external explanation - if something is “unexplained” its existence calls out for an explanation. Things just don’t exist for no reason and without explanation. That is subscribing to “magic” at some level.
The “ontological foundation of all explanations” must contain within it the explanation for everything else, otherwise it serves as a “foundation” for nothing. Again, that would be pure magic.
Contingent things require explanation for why they exist. Necessary things require an explanation for what makes them necessary. What makes God necessary is that his essence is Existence Itself.
It is in coming to know what the essence of existence is that is the reason we exist - to know the truth of what is.
Obviously, I disagree that “unknowable” and “unimaginable” are, at all, appropriate. The expectation exists that we “know, love and serve” God. That implies he is, ultimately, “knowable” in important respects - those that have to do with us. Your characterization is simply mistaken.
Resorting to “brute facts” as your “ontological foundation” is capitulating to the “unknowable” and “unimaginable” being the ontological foundation for everything since you must moor your ontology to that which has no explanation whatsoever.
Why limit the “framework” to the universe? Clearly, the universe does not explain itself since it all began 13.7 billion years ago. Therefore, another framework is required to explain your framework. Your “ontological foundation” is without “ontological foundation.”
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Hebrews 11.1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
It’s only possible to argue this if you dismiss the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles by Luke and all the epistles of Paul, Peter, and John as a pack of lies. What evidence do you offer that they are a conspiracy of lies by a gang of liars?
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I don’t think your question can be properly answered in a Forum. It is a fit subject for a college science class, and asking how the scientific method specifically differs from other methods is likely beyond the scope of even a Ph.D. thesis.
As for the limits of the scientific method what is perhaps most significant is that a proposition cannot be proven within its own closed system. The hypothesis in any true/false argument is an assumption that cannot itself be proven within that same system. This necessitates statistics and probabilities which by their design cannot prove whether any particular instance is true or false. There is only the probability that it is one or the other.
K
KidCatholic1
Guest
To give a few examples…
patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/08/14/is-there-evidence-jesus-was-a-real-person/
josephus.org/testimonium.htm
princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Tacitus_on_Christ.html
everystudent.com/features/bible.html
There us plenty of evidence it was more than just ANY Jesus they were talking about, but rather THE Jesus. Also, the Gospels have historic value to them, so you should take this all in when addressing the existence of Jesus Christ. It’s not magic either.
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
Could you please quote some historical evidence for the “virgin birth”? For the “walking on water”? For feeding a crowd “with one loaf of bread and one fish”? For “turning water into wine”? For the “resurrection”? And the rest of the alleged “miracles”? The Jews were excellent record keepers, yet they somehow “overlooked” these minor supporting facts…
I am familiar with the phrase: “liar, lunatic of lord”? Guess what… the author of this phrase forgot the fourth possibility: “legend”. In those ancient times there were all sorts of “legends”, and the people believed them.
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
Things may be necessary in one respect and contingent in another. In a “grandfather - father - son” setup the father is contingent in relation to the grandfather and necessary in relation to the son. The concept of “necessary” being is stipulated that a “being” is “necessary”, it is exists in ALL the possible universes. And since the intersection of “ALL” the possible universes is the null-set - there is no “necessary” being.
Empty assertions like this carry no weight. Many a times I tried to find out what the “essence” of a “cow” might be. I never received an answer. You cannot base an argument of undefined and unfounded principles. The “essence” - “it is what it is” is actually sheer nonsense.
Well, the church says that the finite mind cannot “capture” the infinite God, so God is unknowable. The adjectives used to describe him do not mean what they say, they are incorrect approximations of what they attempt to refer to. And as for “unimaginable”, try to describe the methodology behind what God (allegedly) said: “Let there be light, and there was light”. Can anyone “imagine” what happened at that moment - except it was sheer magic?
Because the universe is “all there is”.
Nonsense. The current form of the universe began at that time - not the universe itself.
I
Ignatius
Guest
I didn’t say anything about postulate the existence of any miracles.
Are you seriously attempting to deny the existence of the vast mountain of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? Really???
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
Well, in this case, what are you talking about?
G
Gregory_Olson
Guest
Hey Hee Zen,
You ready for a long post?
I was just getting to the crux of my argument and I was distracted by college finals…
So sorry to drag up old stuff, but to my questions “Why is anything important to you at all? How can anything at all matter in any way?” You responded:
Here is a good place for the argument that the chain reaction of natural events must have been started by something supernatural–it can’t have been started by something natural, because then the “start” would just be part of the process.
Long post done! It took me two hours, so please read it.
-Greg
P.S. Most of my questions are rhetorical–sorry about that.
You ready for a long post?
I was just getting to the crux of my argument and I was distracted by college finals…So sorry to drag up old stuff, but to my questions “Why is anything important to you at all? How can anything at all matter in any way?” You responded:
- Now I would agree that limited or temporary things can be meaningful or have value, but I only think so because there is a God that makes them that way. In your food example, why does it matter that you are sustained? Even if you and a lifetime supply of roast duck and vintage wine were the only matter in the universe, wouldn’t all the molecules of the food and your body just be going through a chain reaction of cause and effect that you were helpless to control or alter in any way? Why is any given arrangement of molecules “better” than another? Technically all the matter and energy that made up you and your food would last infinitely, but that doesn’t make them meaningful either. Why does a certain amount of a hormone being released in your brain have meaning? Why do your thoughts, which are only the result of chemical and mechanical reaction in your brain, have meaning?
- If I say I believe in something beyond nature, I am only saying I believe there is something beyond this chain of reactions which we know as the universe/multiverse, which can possibly affect the universe/multiverse. Nature is just the thing that naturally happens as a result of another thing. If it is altered in any way, it must be by something external to nature.
So, if I am a naturalist, I say what is natural is all there is. If I believe in the supernatural, I say there is something outside of nature that has affected what would have naturally happened.
Out of lack of imagination, a few reject the supernatural simply because it seems incredible. But of course this is logically part of the package; if there is something other than nature, it must be something other than what one would expect to be natural.
Here is a good place for the argument that the chain reaction of natural events must have been started by something supernatural–it can’t have been started by something natural, because then the “start” would just be part of the process.
- Well, if this Starter were to reveal himself to us, doesn’t taking our form and speaking our language to communicate meaning seem a likely way? Or perhaps by inspiring our thoughts directly?
Well, if these actually were to happen at some point in human history, what would they look like?
Would he reveal things to us that seem natural to us? Well, yes, because this supernatural Starter also happened to have created us, but otherwise, no! Does morality make sense? It seems automatic and rational to us for some reason, but naturally, it really doesn’t! The idea that some things are “better” than others is naturally ludicrous! (Perhaps we might have naturally evolved a sense of things that are good or bad* for us*, but this is something else entirely from inherent and absolute “good” and “bad.”) The argument that Christian teaching is too incredible is irrational–this in fact would point towards its supernatural truth.
Long post done! It took me two hours, so please read it.
-Greg
P.S. Most of my questions are rhetorical–sorry about that.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I see. So you assumed talking to cows would bring you to an understanding of the essence of “cow?” :ehh:
They never answered, huh?
Oh, that’s sad. :bighanky:
T
Thomas_White
Guest
There IS nothing outside the universe? How could there BE nothing. If nothing IS, then nothing IS. It exists. The eternal present simply IS. Even in the temporal work of time only the present exists. The past no longer exists, and the future does not yet exist. There is Becoming in time, but it is an illusion.
That creation, or the universe, exists in time entails its beginning and its ending. If there is then nothing, there is something, or some thing. If that thing, nothing, is all there IS, an eternal present, then it is pure Being.
B
Bradski
Guest
I’ll have what he’s having…
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Lol.
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
Hi Greg,
It is an interesting sign that your name happens to coincide with my son’s name.
Yes, indeed I read every sentence of it, and will respond to them. You were kind and sent me interesting links, which were worth to read, so I am sending to you one of my favorite sci-fi short stories, which was written by my favorite writer: Stanislaw Lem: Non serviam. I would “urge” you to make time to read it, and ponder it. It will not be an easy read, but college students (as you said you are) are accustomed to that. It will be about an hour to read from beginning to end.Now you do not have to wait for my reply, we can split our conversation into two “mini-threads”, one is dealing with your questions, and one is dealing with my side. I promise you that when you have finished the story, you will have a much better understanding about my line of thought.
Now I will start to respond in a new post.
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
So, let’s start. 1) I have no idea what you mean by “real” meaning. 2) No, there is nothing plausible to have something “beyond” nature. 3) I see no sign of any “revelation”.
Now in more detail. There is no “ulterior” meaning that I am aware of. WE give meaning to “things”, “ideas” and “events”.
Simple biology. Life is just a “struggle” to maintain our homeostasis in a variable environment. In other words, we are hardwired to “value” life over non-life. Even non-thinking organisms attempt to stay “alive”. There is no need for the God assumption.
Sure, why not. But is does not add anything to the package. And there is no evidence for it. Any kind of “logical” approach is only as good as the underlying assumptions are. You may have a logically valid inference, but that does not make it logically sound. All the so-called philosophical “proofs” of God are based on some assumptions, which cannot be validated.
H
Hee_Zen
Guest
Yes, they did. They said that the “essence” is a ridiculous concept. I also asked the human proponents of this concept and they had no answer either.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So because neither cows nor humans can tell you what a cow actually is, you suppose a cow actually is nothing and asking, "What makes a cow a cow? is a ridiculous idea merely because that question has not been answered to your liking?
By the way, have you ever read Thomas Nagel’s “What is it Like to be a Bat?”
Now, of course, it won’t tell you what it means to be a cow, but it might give you some insight into why the question is a vexing, rather than ridiculous one. You might suppose that any vexing question should be dismissed as ridiculous, but, you see, I don’t think that is true because often it is in the asking that we get insight.
If nothing else, it might bring some humility in the realization that some questions are by their very nature beyond our abilities to answer - but that, in itself, does not make them ridiculous.
- Status