Steve Meyer, author of The Return of the God Hypothesis, observes in a pdocast with Wesley Smith, “you rarely hear people refer to a ‘consensus’ in science when there actually is one.”
What’s needed, he says, and what is increasingly under siege in our culture, is the idea of “science as an open form of inquiry,” where “science advances as scientists argue about how to interpret the evidence.” Meyer would like to see more scientific debate, across the board, from climate change to Darwinian evolution to “many issues that have arisen in response to the Covid epidemic.” I couldn’t agree more. I want to offer a thought about something that underlies the impulse to clamp down on debate, and it relates to Thanksgiving.
At the end of the podcast they touch on the fragility, the brittleness of the materialist picture of reality. Materialism is as oppressive as it is because it can’t afford one slip-up, not one exception to the iron rule that nothing exists beyond nature. Wesley cites a fascinating interview with two well known “proud atheists,” Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker and his wife, the philosopher Rebecca Goldstein. She wrote a particularly good book that I read when it came out, Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity. Both are committed to Spinoza-style rationalism. In the interview with Salon, Pinker and Goldstein make clear how fragile their atheism is…
David Klinghoffer, “Thanksgiving and the Frailty of Scientific Atheism” at Evolution News and Science Today
Wesley Smith’s got a point. As a totalistic philosophy, “scientific atheism” (materialism) can be confuted by a single contrary example. Other philosophies are more robust. For example, one shyster evangelist doesn’t prove that all religion is wrong.
Anyway, materialist atheism is — you read it here first — slowly being destroyed by panpsychism. Panpsychism (everything is conscious) makes more sense. Here’s why:
Recall Egnor’s Principle: If your hypothesis is that even electrons are conscious, your hypothesis is likely wrong. But if your hypothesis is that the human mind is an illusion, then… you don’t have a hypothesis. That’s slowly killing “scientific” atheism.
You may also wish to read: A Darwinian biologist resists learning to live with panpsychism. Jerry Coyne makes two things quite clear: He scorns panpsychism and he doesn’t understand why some scientists accept it. The differences between panpsychism and naturalism are subtle but critical. As panpsychism’s popularity grows, insight will be better than rage and ridicule.
Materialism/physicalism does not necessarily imply atheism.
Both atheist and theistic scientists are perfectly able to conduct good research.
To refute atheism you would need to demonstrate the existence of a god/creator/supreme designer beyond a reasonable doubt. This discussion would not be happening if that had happened.
One shyster evangelist, no, but a number of them that are allowed to ply their trade and flourish unchallenged indicates a deep-rooted malaise in the faith.
Panpsychism is speculation. We can’t adequately explain our own consciousness let alone the possibility that the entire universe is some sort of conscious entity. But it’s still fun to play around with such ideas.
Maybe, but how would we even test such an idea, let alone know if it’s right or wrong?
You call it a hypothesis but is it even that? How would you test it? It’s not killing science or atheism. My impression was that the “mind is an illusion” thing comes more from philosophy than science and it really has nothing to do with atheism. Christians don’t seem to have a problem with our consciousnesses being just thoughts in the mind of God. So what does that make them?
How is recognition of climate change a result of ‘materialist atheism’? What is it with this site and climate-change denial? How are the two things related?
Circadian at 2: Climate change?
Oh: “What’s needed, he says, and what is increasingly under siege in our culture, is the idea of “science as an open form of inquiry,” where “science advances as scientists argue about how to interpret the evidence.””
Meyer would like to see more open discussion of evidence, we expect.
Too much climate change activism – now that you mention it – sounds like an old-fashioned Temperance Crusade – at best. Once respected geneticist David Suzuki is under fire in Canada for obliquely threatening eco-terrorism… That is not the Road Ahead.
“What is it with this site and climate-change denial?”
Circadian,
Because the phrase “Climate Change” is a metaphorical umbrella under which a LOT of lying, cheating, and stealing are taking place. And there’s no denying it.
Andrew
Open inquiry and debate are sorely lacking in science. Just look how Big Bang is protected. Despite all the evidence amassing against it, Big Bang continues to be forced to fit whatever is learned about the universe even when the evidence suggests something else happened.
As far as climate change goes, climate is always changing. On a planet billions of years old with several great ice ages, of which we’re still at the tail end of the last one, there have been plenty of times in Earth’s history free of any ice, including the age of the dinosaurs. Kind of hard to see the Earth is warming faster than any time in history when there is still a great deal of ice left from the last ice age.
Seversky claims, “To refute atheism you would need to demonstrate the existence of a god/creator/supreme designer beyond a reasonable doubt. This discussion would not be happening if that had happened.”
That claim is simply just plain nonsense. Implicit in Seversky’s claim is that if even one dogmatic atheist, such as Seversky, (who has, I might add, shown himself, time and time again, to be impervious to reasoned argument), comes on UD and voices doubt about God’s existence, no matter how good the arguments for God’s existence may be, then God’s existence, according to Seversky’s criteria, has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, that is simply just plain nonsense.
As Michael Egnor recently noted in response to Matt Dillahunty’s ‘Divine Hiddenness’ argument, the atheist’s argument assumes, “that God’s existence is contingent upon the disbelief of even one recalcitrant atheist. This argument is a precis of atheist arrogance — the atheist argument that God’s existence depends upon atheists’ opinion of Him.”
And as Michael Egnor further demonstrated in that article, (via the ten ways that God’s existence can be known), there is more than sufficient reason to convince any reasonable person, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, of God’s existence.
Moreover, in his argument that God’s existence has not been proven ‘beyond a ‘reasonable doubt’, Seversky is, of necessity, presupposing that reason itself can somehow be grounded within his Atheistic worldview. Seversky is also, of necessity, presupposing that, somehow and someway, ‘a place of certainty’ exists within his Atheistic worldview from which he can form a ‘reasonable doubt’ about the existence of other things.
In short, Seversky, in his argument against God, is presupposing an ability to reason and is also presupposing ‘a place of certainty’ from which he can form ‘reasonable doubts’.
Yet Seversky’s Atheistic worldview can ground neither ‘reasoning’ nor ‘a place of certainty’.
First, in regards to reasoning itself. Since reasoning presupposes the existence of logic,
Since reasoning presupposes the existence of logic, then it is necessary for a person to be able to ground the existence of logic within their worldview in the first place. Yet, Seversky simply cannot ground logic within his worldview of Atheistic Naturalism.
As Dr. Michael Egnor, (a former atheist turned Christian), explains, “Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.”
And as J. Warner Wallace, (also a former atheist turned Christian), explains, “The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Objective, Conceptual Laws of Logic is God”
It is also interesting to note the fact that Christianity uniquely ‘predicted’ that logic preceded the existence of the universe. Specifically, in the very first verse of John we find that ‘the Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from the Greek word “Logos”. “Logos” happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic.
Moreover, besides the fact that Seversky’s atheistic worldview cannot even ground the existence of logic in the first place, Seversky’s atheistic worldview, via the denial of free will, also renders any capacity that we might have had to reason in a logically coherent fashion null and void.
As Martin Cothran explains, “By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.”
As should be needless to say, the complete failure of Atheists to be able to account for the existence of logic, and for our ability to reason in a logically coherent fashion in the first place, pretty much renders any claim from the atheist that he is being ‘reasonable’ in his ‘reasonable doubts’ about God existence null and void.
Put simply, the Atheist needs God to even have the capacity to argue against His existence in a logically coherent, and reasonable, fashion in the first place.
Now to Seversky’s second unfounded presupposition, i.e. Seversky necessarily presupposes “a place of certainty” from which he can form ‘a reasonable doubt’ about the existence of God, or ‘a reasonable doubt’ about the existence of anything else for that matter.
Again, that presupposed ‘place of certainty’ simply does not exist in Seversky’s atheistic worldview.
As Rene Descartes, and many others, have pointed out, our sense of self, i.e. “I am”, i.e. “I exist as a real person”, is the most certain thing that we can possibly know about reality.
As Rene Descartes put it, “we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt….”
In other words, Rene Descartes In his ‘method of doubt’, (and via a thought experiment of a malicious demon who was intent on deceiving him about everything he was perceiving), found that he could doubt the existence of all things save for the fact that he existed in order to do the doubting in the first place.
In short, the most certain thing we can possibly know about reality is the fact the we exist as real, conscious, persons.
And from the conclusion that he could only be certain of the fact that he existed in order to do the doubting in the first place, Rene Descartes then went on to use that ‘certain’ conclusion from his ‘method of doubt’ as a starting point to then argue for the existence of God. (i.e. the argument from consciousness.)
And Descartes is hardly alone in his belief that everything we can possibly know, and/or say, about the material world must first start with the fact that we, undeniably, have conscious, immaterial, minds.
Three giants of quantum mechanics, Planck, Schrodinger and Wigner, also held this view,
As Wigner succinctly explained, “The principal argument (against atheistic materialism) is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied.
Yet this ‘place of certainty’, i.e. the belief that we exist as real, conscious, persons, is simply denied by atheists. Consciousness itself, and therefore the belief that we exist as real persons, is simply, (or is that simplistically), held to be a ‘neuronal illusion’ within the Atheist’s materialistic framework.
The claim that our sense of self, that is to say, our conscious experience, is just a neuronal illusion is simply self-refuting nonsense. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
Moreover, it is not just the preceding (very) powerful ‘logical’ argument that establishes that consciousness must be primary in any coherent definition of reality that we may put forth, but empirical science itself has now also falsified the atheist’s belief that material particles are primary and consciousness is secondary.
Specifically, advances in quantum mechanics have now falsified ‘realism’, (which is the (atheistic) belief that a material reality exists completely apart from consciousness, or more specifically, completely apart from our conscious observation of it.)
As the following violation of Leggett’s inequality found, “Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”
And as the following Delayed Choice experiment with atoms found, “reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”.
Moreover, it is not just Leggett’s Inequality and Wheeler’s Delayed choice experiments that prove that consciousness must be primary. There are many other intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that also converged to the same conclusion.
Thus the atheist, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, is now experimentally falsified, via several lines of converging evidence, in his belief that material reality is primary and that consciousness is secondary and/or ‘illusory’.
Moreover, putting all these lines of evidence from quantum mechanics together, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
Thus in conclusion, Seversky, (since he denies the reality of his own immaterial mind), has no place to ground logical reasoning in the first place, nor does he even have ‘a place of certainty’ in which to be able to form a ‘reasonable doubt’ about God’s existence in the first place.
And on top of all that, empirical science itself gives the Christian Theist more than ‘reasonable doubt’ about the primacy of the material particles that form the basis of Seversky’s worldview, i.e. atheistic materialism.
…is a troll and you keep him/her alive.
“and you keep him/her alive.”
Well actually no that would be God, through His grace, Who patiently keeps Seversky alive, and can keep him alive forever more.
Sev & CD’s worldview represent the black knight of Monty Python. I’d just like to know if they have ever honestly dealt with the counter evidence to their dogmatic hold on atheism? As BA77 has demonstrated again, the emperor has no clothes. How in the world someone can watch a microscope video of DNA replication and decide that it naturally assembled itself… oh my. I don’t think we need to zoom in on complex ideas and depth of study, but maybe more zoom out and just apply common sense to our observations.
Female or male first? Circulatory, nervous, or respiratory system first? etc. Human eye…by natural processes? Human thought, music, art…all just natural byproducts? Metamorphosis of a butterfly…
I would imagine as individuals they are probably really good guys to talk with, and we probably agree with some of the critiques of what has been done in the name of Christ. But, I find them incredibly intellectually dishonest and evasive.
I know that they must have somewhat of an atheist safeguard so they don’t delve into the possibility that God exists… possible options
1. The God espoused by the Bible is immoral, so I don’t need to follow him and who would want to? Being away from Him would be better than with him.
2. If the God of the Bible doesn’t exist, but another one does, they will surely judge me off of my life and behavior, so I’ll be okay.
–The evasion and objection is philosophical and emotional, not scientific.
Also: If you can’t answer every question and conundrum or paradox, that doesn’t mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater. Atheists have no problem living in uncertainty about a MYRIAD of things and an acknowledgment of their limit of ability to understand and comprehend, but when you apply that to a faith in Jesus, that just won’t fly for them. Two different standards based on emotional/philosophical presuppositions/biases.
Jesus’ death and resurrection demand a verdict (nod to Mr. McDowell)… what is your verdict?
Jesus’ death–likely
Jesus’ resurrection from the dead–don’t think so
This is a fundamental issue upon which deists, like myself, (and I imagine many atheists) reject Christianity.
“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” 1 Corinthians 15:14
Chuckdarwin @11,
There are only two options:
A: Jesus was a lunatic or fraud.
Lunatics exhibit well-known behaviors that clinical psychologists can easily identify. Frauds accumulate money, fame, and sex partners. Followers abandon lunatics and frauds as their behaviors become increasingly extreme. Lunatics and frauds all die as do the rest us.
B: Jesus was God wrapped in a human body, with all its limitations and weaknesses.
In this case, if Jesus was indeed uniquely God wrapped in a human body, his behavior and words would be unique in many respects. God in a human body would not need to make unsupported claims but would do and say things that ONLY God would be able to do such as demonstrating many scientific impossibilities and rising from the dead. Followers and eyewitnesses to such a person would behave in ways that would be expected if Jesus was indeed God wrapped in a human body.
Jesus did not claim to be a holy man and good teacher. He didn’t give us that option.
-Q
C: Jesus is a mythical figure like, say, Robin Hood, possibly based distantly on a real person or persons but no more real than that.
D: Jesus is an entirely fictional character invented as the personification of the faith’s core principles.
I always get sev and cd mixed up…. ugh…
CD… what do you believe about Jesus? Because all of the claims you are making have big problems. Listing off random alternative explanations doesn’t demonstrate anything. What is your stance, and could you present the evidence to hold that up? It seems you are just squishy on everything…except that Christianity is false. Are you willing to risk your eternity on conjecture and un-substantiated ad-hoc explanations that weren’t espoused until centuries after? If your faith is in Bart Ehrman, you might want to re-evaluate critically.
If someone challenges you on your deism…what reasons would you give that God exists?
Chuckdarwin states, “Jesus’ resurrection from the dead–don’t think so”
Yet the Shroud of Turin, stubbornly, and persistently, thinks otherwise,
To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Also of interest is this fascinating tidbit:
So basically, we have a clothe with a photographic negative image on it that was made well before photography was even invented. Moreover, the photographic negative image has a 3-Dimensional holographic nature to its image that was somehow encoded within the photographic negative well before holography was even known about. Moreover, even with our present day technology, we still cannot replicated the image in all its detail. My question to atheists is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image, then please pray tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention mastery of laser holography. Moreover, why did this hypothetical mad super-genius destroy all of his scientific instruments that he would have had to invent in order to make the image? Leonardo da Vinci would not have been worthy to tie the shoe laces of such a hypothetical mad genius!
Seversky claims that “Jesus is a mythical figure like, say, Robin Hood, possibly based distantly on a real person or persons but no more real than that.”
Ironically, Seversky’s own worldview of Darwinian materialism claims that Seversky himself is not a real person.
Go figure? If Seversky, via his Darwinian materialism, can’t even know for certain if he himself is a real person or not I’m sure as heck not going to trust Seversky’s judgment, (if he really exists), on establishing the reality of any other person, especially someone as important as Jesus.
@Seversky
If you think Jesus was a mythical figure, you’re a lunatic! You’d fall into same category as those who believe the holocaust is a myth.
I think the point is we have rather more evidence for the Holocaust than we do for the existence of Jesus Christ, the Son of God manifest on Earth somewhere in the Middle East two thousand years ago.
In a court of law, the testimonies of hostile witnesses are particularly effective when their admissions run contrary to their personal motivations and loyalties. While it’s popular in some circles to question the historical existence of Jesus and the events around his life, the following extra-Biblical sources from around that time are hostile to Jesus and Christianity, but still acknowledge Jesus in history.
Jewish Historian, Josephus Flavius (37 AD – circa 100 AD)
Possibly the earliest extra-Biblical account mentioning Jesus comes from the Jewish historian Josephus.
Originally named, Joseph ben Mattathias, Josephus was born in Jerusalem in 37 AD of priestly and royal lineage. After a spiritual search that didn’t include or even acknowledge Christianity, he eventually aligned himself with the sect of the Pharisees. After being appointed commander of the revolutionary forces in Galilee during the First Jewish-Roman War, Josephus was captured by the Romans in 67 AD.
However, instead of being executed, Josephus was able to convince Vespasian, commander of the Roman legions in Judaea, that he was a prophet and that a prophecy about the future world rulers coming from Judaea meant that Vespasian would become emperor of Rome. When this actually came to pass, Vespasian adopted him as his son. Josephus took the Flavius family name as his own, became a Roman citizen, and was commissioned by Vespasian to be an official historian.
In his 20-volume work, Antiquities of the Jews, written circa 93-94 AD, Josephus records the fact that James, the brother of Jesus, was martyred. In this work, we read the following:
The Gospel of Matthew relates that Jesus had brothers named James, Joseph, and Simon, and he had several sisters as well. James was a leader in the Jerusalem church. See Matthew 13:54-57a, Acts 15.
According to the world’s leading Josephus Flavius scholar, Louis Feldman, the above quote is “almost universally acknowledged,” and beyond dispute. The following information can be derived from this text:
• There was a man named Jesus who was called Christ.
• Jesus had a brother named James.
• James and his companions were accused by the High Priest of a capital violation of Jewish law.
• James and his companions were executed by stoning, which was the penalty under the Mosaic law for extreme infractions.
However, under Roman rule Ananus had no right to convene the Sanhedrin, the supreme religious and judicial council of 71 Jewish sages at the time, or have James and others executed. According to Josephus, the Roman Procurator strongly objected to Ananus’ presumptuous action, which resulted in King Agrippa to removing Ananus from office. James was executed around 62 AD.
The second reference to Jesus is called the Testimonium Flavium. In his autobiography, Josephus recognized three sects of Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, and in the Testimonium Flavium, he called Christians a “tribe” rather than a fourth sect. This establishes that Josephus had an unfavorable view of Christianity.
However, the passage is controversial due to two likely insertions, called interpolations, by a later copyist. The first interpolation questions whether Jesus could properly even be called a man and the second one states that Jesus was the Messiah. Thus, scholars concluded that the passage was altered.
Using textual analysis and the compilation of manuscripts, the majority of modern scholars, including Alice Whealey in her work Josephus on Jesus, agree that Josephus had described the historical person of Jesus in the passage but that the original text would likely have read as follows:
According to another leading Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes, the reconstructed version of this passage provides an authentic portrayal of Jesus by Josephus, depicting him as a wise teacher and miracle worker with an enthusiastic group of followers who remained faithful to him even after his crucifixion by Pilate.
Then in 1971, Shlomo Pines published citations of the Testimonium Flavium from recently discovered 9th or 10th century Arabic and Syriac texts quoting a 4th century Arabic version. The passage in these documents is similar to the reconstructed text.
Thus, the following information can reasonably be derived from this passage:
• There was a historical figure named Jesus, who was considered a wise man, a miracle worker, and a teacher to those who wanted to hear truth.
• Jesus gained a devoted following among both Jews and Greeks.
• Jesus was crucified under Pilate at the instigation of prominent Jewish leaders.
• The disciples of Jesus were called “Christians,” from the Greek word for Messiah, and continued to love his teachings even to the time of Josephus, about 65 years later.
The writings of Josephus are available online at http://josephus.org/joschron.htm.
Roman Historian, Cornelius Tacitus (circa 56 AD – circa 118 AD)
In Annuls, Book 15, Tacitus wrote the following about the Great Fire of Rome that burned for a total of nine days, destroying two-thirds of Rome in AD 64:
The following information can be derived from this passage:
• A despised group called “Christians” by the population were blamed for the fire.
• The man called Christus “suffered the extreme penalty,” a reference to crucifixion.
• The execution was carried out under Pontius Pilatus, as recorded in the New Testament.
• Tacitus refers to Christianity as “a most mischievous superstition” spreading in Judea and Rome.
Autoclytus (unknown dates of birth and death)
About 170 AD, Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch replied in writing to a friend named Autoclytus, who was hostile to Christianity, tried to redefine the derogatory use of “Christian” into a positive term.
While, the original conversation with Autoclytus wasn’t recorded, Theophilus’ reply highlights the contempt associated with the term, Christian. But first, some background information.
“Christian” was a name commonly used by people in reference to the early believers in Jesus, who called themselves disciples and followers of “the Way” as recorded in the New Testament: Acts 9:1-2, 19:9, 19:23, 22:4, 22:14, and 24:22. Naming these believers Christians is also recorded in Acts.
Note the following:
• Antioch was the capital of the Roman province of Syria, now located in the region of Antakya, Turkey.
• The name and title of Jesus of Nazareth in Hebrew is Yeshua Ha’Machiach, which is translated into Jesus the Messiah in English.
• Messiah in Hebrew means “anointed one,” referring to the historical Israelite practice of a priest anointing a newly installed king with oil for this special role, symbolizing the presence of the Holy Spirit in that person. The Greek equivalent of anointed one is Khristos and in Latin it’s Christus
.
And now, here’s what Theophilus wrote in reply.
Theophilus returned to the Greek word for ointment, chrisma, meaning anointed with oil in this case and by implication by the Holy Spirit. Theophilus suggested to Autoclytus that the word, Christian, should actually be understood as a desirable and honored description of all genuine Christians.
The following information can be derived from this passage:
• “Christian” was originally used as a derogatory term for the followers of Jesus, even as late as 170 AD.
• Among the Christians of that time, there was an association between anointing oil and the working of the Holy Spirit through the lives of the believers.
Greek Satirist, Lucian of Samosata (120 AD – circa 180 AD)
From Lucian’s work, The Death of Peregrinus:
The following information can be derived from these passages:
• “Christians” continued worshiping Jesus after his death and were devoted to his teachings.
• Jesus was considered a sage and died by crucifixion.
• Christians believe that they’ve received eternal life, and thus have courage over death.
• Christians believe that they are all spiritual brothers with one another as stated in Galatians 3:24-28, and they selflessly share their worldly possessions as “common property” as recorded in Acts 4:32-35.
• Christians reject Greek polytheism and instead worship Jesus as God.
The Jewish Talmud
The Talmud is a collection of Jewish historical traditions, civil and ceremonial law, and commentaries. There are two similar versions: the Jerusalem Talmud dating from around 375 AD and the Babylonian Talmud dating from around 500 AD.
We read the following in the Jerusalem Talmud:
A similar passage in the Babylonian Talmud states the following:
The “Lot for the Lord” and the crimson-colored cord were associated with the yearly Jewish temple rituals for the atonement of sins. Both ritual elements behaved in a manner disturbing to the priests.
In addition, there were miraculous and puzzling signs involving the bronze massive temple doors and the solid gold temple menorah, which was three cubits high. Historically, a priest was assigned to tend the seven lamps on the temple menorah, filling them with oil, preparing the wicks, and lighting them every day. The middle lamp was called the lamp of Elohim (God) and was always supposed to be lit continuously. Disturbingly, this middle lamp kept going out.
So, what exactly happened 40 years before the destruction of the Temple? Forty years before 70 AD is 30 AD, the likely year of the crucifixion of Jesus.
Jesus in the Talmud
The degree of hostility toward Jesus can be appreciated from the following passage, but it also provides additional clues about what Jesus did in his ministry.
In addition, scholars have identified the following references in the Talmud that likely refer to Jesus:
• Jesus as a sorcerer with disciples (b Sanh 43a-b)
• Healing in Jesus’ name (Hul 2:22f; AZ 2:22/12; y Shab 124:4/13; QohR 1:8; b AZ 27b)
• Jesus as a Torah teacher (b AZ 17a; Hul 2:24; QohR 1:8)
• Jesus as a son or disciple that turned out badly (Sanh 103a/b; Ber 17b)
• Jesus as a frivolous disciple who practiced magic and turned to idolatry (Sanh 107b; Sot 47a)
• Jesus’ punishment in afterlife (b Git 56b, 57a)
• Jesus’ execution (b Sanh 43a-b)
• Jesus as the son of Mary (Shab 104b, Sanh 67a)
Conclusion
The written testimonies of hostile witnesses are valuable in that they indirectly confirm some of the basic content of the New Testament including the historical existence, ministry, miracles, trial and crucifixion of Jesus, and the committed faith of the early Christians. Other references in these hostile writings also confirm some of the historical details mentioned in the gospels, helping to place Jesus into a credible historical context.
-Q
Bornagain77/15
ENEA suggests a possible mechanism using vacuum ultra-violet radiation for producing some of the effects observed on the fabric of the Shroud. That’s a long, long way from confirming the Resurrection or that the Shroud provides the basis for a Theory of Everything.
What reason do you have for thinking that God “beaming up” Jesus from the tomb would involve an extremely brief but powerful flash of VUV radiation?
Querius said:
1. How do you know that only God would be able do what Jesus did?
2. Given this is a unique example, how could we possibly understand “what to expect” from followers and eyewitnesses?
Nice Post, Q!
It is exasperating to see the ad-hoc explanations that are likely not even likely espoused by the ones posting it…. they just need an “out” or a plausible scenario to wiggle out of accountability and the implications of a personal God who will execute justice and also save those who belong to his kingdom.
What parts of Jesus’ tea
There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
God is making all things new and restored to what they should have been. We were made to be in awe and to worship, but sin cursed the world through the temptation of the fallen angel satan (which, we also have evidence for in the accounts of demonic possession that are documented) and Jesus came to break the curse on humanity.
When you look around and say “this isn’t how it should be” you affirm there is a state of perfection, a standard to which you judge things. But should there be a standard if we are pond scum? I’d say not.
If you have any intellectual dignity, you’d look at the evidence for the resurrection and say “man, it is pretty compelling for 2000 years ago and a supernatural claim, but I can’t buy a resurrection or I honestly don’t really want to.”
The problem here, as has been the case as long as I have seen, is an emotional one. Our minds and hearts are hostile to God by nature, and we need restored and reconciled. Hence Jesus.
Then, one day we will be with him, and he with us. It will be a place of fullness of Joy and pleasures forevermore. We will see beauty beyond comparison and will have all things good in their proper order.
If you want to look at maximal data to support the authenticity of the gospels, I highly suggest the channel “testify” on youtube. Lots of content I didn’t really know about until this past year that is very interesting and compelling and done in a concise and engaging way. Just check it out.
Nice Post, Q!
It is exasperating to see the ad-hoc explanations that are likely not even likely espoused by the ones posting it…. they just need an “out” or a plausible scenario to wiggle out of accountability and the implications of a personal God who will execute justice and also save those who belong to his kingdom.
There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
God is making all things new and restored to what they should have been. We were made to be in awe and to worship, but sin cursed the world through the temptation of the fallen angel satan (which, we also have evidence for in the accounts of demonic possession that are documented) and Jesus came to break the curse on humanity.
No greater love has a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends
When you look around and say “this isn’t how it should be” you affirm there is a state of perfection, a standard to which you judge things. But should there be a standard if we are pond scum? I’d say not.
If you have any intellectual dignity, you’d look at the evidence for the resurrection and say “man, it is pretty compelling for 2000 years ago and a supernatural claim, but I can’t buy a resurrection or I honestly don’t really want to.”
The problem here, as has been the case as long as I have seen, is an emotional one. Our minds and hearts are hostile to God by nature, and we need restored and reconciled. Hence Jesus.
Then, one day we will be with him, and he with us. It will be a place of fullness of Joy and pleasures forevermore. We will see beauty beyond comparison and will have all things good in their proper order.
If you want to look at maximal data to support the authenticity of the gospels, I highly suggest the channel “testify” on youtube. Lots of content I didn’t really know about until this past year that is very interesting and compelling and done in a concise and engaging way. Just check it out.
There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus then there is for universal common descent via blind and mindless processes. Heck there is more evidence for the Loch Ness monster then there is for UCD via blind and mindless processes.
BA77: it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud.
You quote some secondary source for this claim. Please provide a link to the primary research by whoever is making this claim. Thank you.
Sev asks, “What reason do you have for thinking that God “beaming up” Jesus from the tomb would involve an extremely brief but powerful flash of VUV radiation?”
Well first off, I presupposed nothing as to what it would actually take for God to raise Jesus from the dead.
I simply pointed out towards the end of the following video, (where I lay out the case for Christ’s resurrection from the dead providing a very plausible, and in all likelihood, correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’, i.e. the unification of Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity),,,
,,, I simply pointed out towards the end of the preceding video, that, quote-unquote, “besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was dealt with.”,,,
And that ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology”, certainly gives us evidence that quantum mechanics itself was dealt with.
To be clear, generating vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) radiation is indeed a quantum affair.
As to providing empirical evidence that it is even possible for a human body to generate, and emit ‘quantum light’, the following article states, “there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light.”, (i.e. biophotons, i.e biological laser light)
And the following study found that humans emit light that is “well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons.”
You can see pictures of a human emitting biophotons, i.e. biological laser light, here:
Moreover, to relate the Shroud of Turin to the fact that humans emit light that is “well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons”, in the following study it was found that “the optical density distribution, (on the Shroud of Turin),, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
So a viable mechanism of biophoton, (i.e. biological laser light), emission from the human body exists that provides a plausible explanation for the ‘quantum’ image we see on the Shroud of Turin,,
@Seversky #18
Do you believe the Ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates existed?
When it comes to the historical Jesus, even the most ardent liberal New Testament scholars believe he was a real person, which would put your comments on par with the lunatic fringe—you know, the same group of people who deny the holocaust actually happened.
Ram at 25, I traced the source to the ’34 thousand billion watt’ article to here:
And here are the slides to a 2017 powerpoint presentation that was given by Paolo Di Lazzaro where he, (at about the 30th slide of the presentation), discusses the 34 thousand billion watt result,
Specifically, Lazzaro’s 30th slide in his powerpoint presentation states,
Three things:
First, It seems that the critics here are mainly focused on Christianity and that this is their main rationale for objecting to ID.
Second, ID has nothing to do with Christianity. It is supportive of all who believe there is a creator and whatever religion postulates there is a creator of the universe. So it does support Christianity in that sense.
Finally, Objections to ID and Christianity are on display and they mainly consist of snarky and specious claims. These are people who have access to the best arguments against either produced in the world of thought.
Or else we would be seeing more coherent arguments. I therefore assume these coherent arguments don’t exist.
So those who are criticizing are actually extremely supportive of both ID and Christianity.
KRock: When it comes to the historical Jesus, even the most ardent liberal New Testament scholars believe he was a real person, which would put your comments on par with the lunatic fringe—you know, the same group of people who deny the holocaust actually happened.
There is a group of Biblical scholars who cast doubt on the existence of the Biblical Jesus; they are called mythicists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
Whether or not they are considered the lunatic fringe is up for debate. But it is a real movement.
ET: Heck there is more evidence for the Loch Ness monster then there is for UCD via blind and mindless processes.
That cannot be true since there is zero evidence for the Lock Ness monster and the only way zero can be ‘more’ than some other value is if the other value is negative.
Jerry: Second, ID has nothing to do with Christianity.
I’m not sure Dr Dembski would agree with you. See:
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/bill-dembski-offers-some-thoughts-on-the-current-state-of-christian-apologetics/
BA77, sorry, just a bunch of B.S.
Care to make a logical argument here?
I predict you cannot.
What I’m asking for is this:
Make a claim and defend it in your own words. And let’s engage.
Can you do it?
–Ram
Ram, HUH?,
You asked for the primary source on the VUV radiation study. I traced it down. You gave no ‘logical’ reason for rejecting it, but just called it “just a bunch of B.S.”
You then ask me “Care to make a logical argument here?”
Again, HUH?
and you then state, “I predict you cannot.
What I’m asking for is this:
Make a claim and defend it in your own words. And let’s engage.
Can you do it?”
Again, HUH? I ‘logically’ defended the claim myself by tracing the primary source for the VUV study down. Yet, you are the one who gave no logical reason whatsoever for rejecting the VUV radiation study.
Do you want me to go do the VUV radiation tests myself? And exactly how will me performing the test be better than what the scientists at The Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, (ENEA), found?
You said you want me to “make a logical argument”, but you yourself have not made a logical reply to the study in the first place.
Empirical evidence is what it is, and calling it “just a bunch of B.S.” is certainly not giving me a ‘logical’ reason for you not accepting the empirical evidence that I presented to you. In fact the tone of your reply, i.e. “just a bunch of B.S.”, is very much indicative that your reply was driven far more by your prior emotions about the subject than it was by your logical analysis of the subject.
But anyways, as to giving you my own words,,, well, in this thread at post 15, ‘in my own words’, I asked atheists/non-Christians this following question, “My question to atheists is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image (of the Shroud), then please pray tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention mastery of laser holography.”
William J Murray @21,
1. Would you say that it’s common for people to rise from the dead? Option B in @12 is correct, then what other actions, behaviors, and teachings would you expect from God wrapped in a human body? There are a number of possibilities that most people can imagine.
2. Many surprising and unique events in history can give you a clue about people’s reactions. These include seemingly miraculous upsets in sports, a “miracle drug” that cures you of something, an amazing presenter on a subject of interest—articulate, clear, well-informed, and entertaining, or perhaps a miraculous medical event such as this one:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234287/
-Q
Zweston @23,
Thank you, Zweston. Good points all. And thanks also for the reference to the Testify channel on YouTube, of which I’m watching this video:
God Still Works Miracles Today w/ Dr. Craig Keener
https://youtu.be/C0B18ofJGaY
-Q
For those interested in the Shroud of Turin, go to http://www.shroud.com.
Nearly all the research is there
Di Lazzaro shows up several times.
The interesting thing about the Shroud is that there is no other artifact in the history of the world with the same properties. Especially since it came on the scene about 800 years ago and there were stories about it way before that.
Jerry @29,
Good points.
I agree–ID takes no position on the intelligent designer and shouldn’t. However, an ID perspective produces better scientific results in assuming that existing biological structures have a designed purpose worthy of investigation rather than none. For example, “junk DNA” is now considered a misnomer because “non-coding DNA” does have recently discovered functionality.
Yes, I’ve frequently noticed the same thing.
-Q
JVL @30,
I think it’s safe to say that they’re considered to be on the fringe. Even Bart Ehrman, hardly a believer in Jesus as the Messiah, agrees that Jesus really did exist in history. He writes
Here’s an article that examines the question and the skeptics:
https://reasonsforjesus.com/jesus-exist-scholars-agree-certainly-existed/
-Q
As I posted earlier, Jesus also had real historical detractors of which we have real historical writings.
That even the Talmud asserts that Jesus existed but was “a magician” and “a sorcerer” speaks volumes.
To arbitrarily exclude the summary that I presented of the historical evidence is no different than editing and rewriting history to suit one’s preferences and ideology. Of course, people are free to do so, but then they’re dropping any pretense of being objective, but simply reveal the fantasy in which they insist on living.
-Q
See https://www.amazon.com/The-Historical-Jesus-Ancient-Evidence/dp/0899007325/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_5?ie=UTF8&refRID=049RF6H3VS7WWT6FP3F9
William J Murray @21,
Here’s another example of a person’s reaction when they witness (or at least think they’ve witnessed) someone rising from the dead:
https://youtu.be/C0B18ofJGaY?t=1956
Thus, when many apostles and disciples saw Jesus after being raised from the dead, it’s no wonder that they responded with great excitement and enthusiasm even when persecuted and martyred.
-Q
Q- make sure you watch all his content on the arguments supporting the validity of the Bible… undesigned coincidences, etc…. his last one “Jesus is ALIVE” is really solid as well. A wealth of content. His website is: isjesusalive.com
Querius @35 said:
I have absolutely no idea what “God wrapped in a human body” would do. You’re using circular reasoning here. You’re taking an account of what someone you believe to be “God wrapped in a human body” did, and then saying that this is the kind of thing you’d expect from such a situation.
You’re doing the same thing; you’re taking the example of how people behaved in the case you believe to be of God wrapped in a human body and saying that how people were reported to have been behaving is how people would behave if they were experiencing God wrapped in a human body. First, outside of your prior circular reasoning and assuming your own premise, you have no idea how God wrapped in a human body would behave, and therefore you cannot by extension have any idea how people would react to God wrapped in a human body.
IOW, there is no reason for you to think, except by presupposing the case in question to be that situation, that God wrapped in a human body would behave that way and do those things which would precipitate any behavior of those around such a being.
For all you know, absent presupposing the case in question as true, what God would do is be completely unnoticeable and not perform any miracles or draw attention to himself, and nobody around him would even notice.
Thanks Zweston, and especially Querius, for your posts defending the historical reliability of the resurrection. I’ll think I’ll tuck post 19, about hostile witnesses confirming key parts of the resurrection, into my notes for future reference.
19
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-time-for-american-thanksgiving-stephen-meyer-on-the-frailty-of-scientific-atheism/#comment-741252
Craig Keener’s video is a powerful apologetic too.
God Still Works Miracles Today w/ Dr. Craig Keener
https://youtu.be/C0B18ofJGaY
of note:
A British agnostic once said “let’s not discuss the other miracles; let’s discuss the resurrection. Because if the resurrection is true, then the other miracles are easily explained; and if the resurrection is not true, the other miracles do not matter.”
Sir Edward Clark — a prominent lawyer in Great Britain “As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To me, the evidence is conclusive; and over and over again in the high court, I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection I accept unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.”
Canon Westcott — for years a brilliant scholar at Cambridge University “Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.”
Thomas Arnold — Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome “I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”
http://www.awordfromtheword.org/what-if.htm
“I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”
Sir Lionel Luckhoo. A British lawyer knighted for his work. He won 245 consecutive murder cases.
“Let [the Gospel’s] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”
Simon Greenleaf from his book “Testimony of the Evangelicals”. Greenleaf was one of the founders of the Harvard Law School who wrote the book “A Treatise on the Law of Evidence”. He was an atheist until some students challenged him to examine the evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
@JVL #30
Oh, I’m well aware of the group (nobody worth their salt takes them seriously). I’m also aware that there are plenty of people—smart people even—who deny that the holocaust occurred, and their numbers are on the rise.
If one wants to deny the historical Jesus, then they should do the same for most of the Ancient Greek author as well.
At severe risk of sounding condescending, I do believe the boundary is emotional and spiritual, not evidential. Paul tells us the cross is folly to those who don’t believe and that it is spiritually discerned.
Another evidence is the effectiveness and documented commentary by historical figures of the 1st and second century of the efficacy of Christian exorcism: https://lausanne.org/content/historical-overview-1
I have to tell you, BA… hearing those quotes and testimonies never gets Old. Love your posts and defense of the Gospel. A good study of C.S. Lewis’ story of conversion should be enough to soften a heart and open a mind toward Christ. Scientism is the modern day cult religion and evolution as its origin myth.
However, just like in Jesus’ time: Matthew 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”
What is maybe the most exhausting for me is the claim “there is no evidence” of Jesus raising from the dead. There is so much lack of reason and ability to define common terms. Just like I don’t think the post-modern “your truth” movement is a coincidence… When the truth is plain, the only way to thwart it is to redefine the word and give it no value. To be a skeptic is to box yourself in like David Hume and just pre-suppose there is no miracles, or make your own definition that suits your standard of proof/evidence, but then disregard that standard on almost everything you believe, except that which has an eternal implication.
It was noted above…when you see the lack of quality of arguments against the faith, it should only give you greater confidence.
There were plenty of people with motivation to prove that Jesus didn’t resurrect. The problem was that the tomb was empty and hundreds of people were claiming to have seen Jesus simultaneously.
When we stand before God, we will be without excuse. John 3:36 is just as important as John 3:16.
Zweston said:
I agree with this, and it’s not condescending because it cuts both ways; those that cross the barrier do so for the same reason as those who do not cross: it’s an emotional and spiritual choice. Either way, you can attempt to justify that choice with logic and evidence, but frankly I don’t see how either side can win that competition.
Even given that every single miraculous event actually happened as described in the Bible, there is zero logical or evidential connection between those events and “God;” there is only an asserted connection to “God” as being the cause or source of the ability to do those things.
WJM, You write off specific fulfilled prophecy as an indicator of a supernatural person verifying their message?
Isaiah 52-53, Psalm 22, Genesis 3:15, Genesis 22, Jonah and the Whale, Samson did more in his death than in his life, Passover-10th plague and then the sacrifice system, Other passages in Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, David slays the giant, Isaac’s descendants will reign forever, etc… could go on and on. Thorns were a sign of the curse, and Jesus wore them as a crown. Blessed are we because of the one who wore our shame.
Also, if Jesus literally commanded a storm to stop and it obeyed, don’t you think you could logically deduce a supernatural being that has power over nature might lend itself to a God claim? (heavy on the sarcasm)
Zweston asks:
No, I don’t write that off. “Supernatural person” does not equal, or indicate, “God.” Being able to foretell the future does not logically indicate “God.” Being able to “command nature” does not logially indicate “God.”
That is all circular reasoning, circling back to the claim that the being that did these things is “God.”
IOW, “God” is always beyond the reach of evidence or logic to identify as the being that did anything; logically, being the ground itself for existence, the uncaused cause, is all we can say with confidence about God. Beyond that – who knows what all kinds of beings exist, what kind of power they have, supernatural or not? Who knows what they can do or cannot do?
I certainly don’t know. For all I know, some very powerful entity created this entire universe and runs it the way he wants to, and other similar beings created and run different universes, and all THE “God” does is provide the existential grounds for all of that. How the heck would I know?
WJM…. If prophecy is correct from a document, and that document establishes who God is and points to a specific character… then doesn’t that give you a reason to hold to that explanation?
What is your alternative position and anything that would substantiate that position…
WJM, if the God that is described in scripture validates himself via prophecy, dominion over nature, miracles, healings, exorcism… and that same author says repent and follow Jesus… would it make sense to say “well, maybe there are some other ones out there, so no need to heed that warning”?
William J Murray @21,
Actually, I wrote the reverse, that Jesus would be able to do things that only God could do. They’re not the same thing.
The answer to the reverse question is that since the avatar of William J Murray is able to do things unique to the person behind the avatar, it’s not illogical to conclude that the only begotten avatar of God could do things that only God can do.
While I can’t speak for you, most people can easily extrapolate “what to expect” based on similar miraculous or perceived miraculous events. Watch the video segment that I posted in my response @42 (from the video Zweston posted).
-Q
Zweston @43,
Thanks! I certainly will.
-Q
Bornagain77 @45,
Glad to share it with you, Bornagain77.
Isn’t it interesting that Seversky simply vanished after I destroyed his assertion that Jesus was mostly or entirely a myth?
This stupid assertion keeps popping up with boring regularity and is shot down each time.
I believe the reason for his disappearance is that even if his arguments are destroyed, it won’t change his mind because there’s other, less-scholarly reasons behind his infinite skepticism. So, if we knew what the real reason was and we could address it, I think he would then be open to the love that God has for him and a wonderful life-changing experience!
-Q
William J Murray,
Ok, let’s pretend that God appeared to you in a burning bush with a voice like thunder and commissioned you as his special messenger. Naturally, you’d doubt your sanity, but just for sake of your previous objections and your admission that you don’t know, let’s assume this experience was genuine and real.
How would you be able to convince rightly skeptical people that you’re really truly God’s messenger?
Here’s the rub.
You’re not allowed to simply terrify people because that would be coercion. You need to convince them of A. God’s existence, B. his love for them, C. his intent to save them from the cancer of evil in this world and upcoming global “surgery,” and D. facilitate their Free Will relationship with God. You can request miraculous powers or scintillating intellect or whatever, but no coercion. You’re given three years and no, you can’t go back in history.
Ok, so you walk into London. Do you try to make an appointment with Queen Elizabeth? The Archbishop of Canterbury? Graham Norton or Stephen Colbert? Do you announce yourself in Piccadilly Circus? Put up billboards and rent a stadium? How about starting at the Petersham hotel in Richmond Hill? Or maybe more modestly in West London?
What would be your approach?
-Q
#19 Queirius
With all due respect to Seversky, to me, the issue isn’t whether Jesus existed, it is whether he rose from the dead. Per Paul (1 Corinthians 15;14), that is a deal maker or breaker. None of your proffered “witnesses” speak to the resurrection.
CD @ 59, I agree you have identified the “crux” of the matter. If those opposition testimonies believed in a resurrection, you’d write them off a biased because they’d be Christians.
When Paul wrote that, it’s because he put his whole life on that fact…despite having everything he could want as a member of the Pharisees/Sanhedrin. It cost him everything earthly. What is your evidence that he would do such a thing without gaining power, money, or sex?
CD, if they were witnessing to any other type of event, you’d have no problem accepting it. Your disposition against miracles is showing, which is understandable. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQmpk7IMO8I
CD, not related, but I’ll ask again… if someone pressed you on your Deism, how would you defend it?
Q@58 said:
How would I know it’s God?
Querius said:
The problem is that I don’t know what the set of “things” are that “only God can do.” I have absolutely no way of making that assessment. If an ant could think, it might think that I must be God. If I went back in time with modern weapons, medical supplies and an assortment of technology with the gear necessary to power it, and I told those people I was God because of all the things I could do AND because I knew the future, does that mean I’m God?
If someone developed super-powers like Superman and claimed to be God, does that make that person God?
Your evidential argument is circular. “Who else but God could have done that?” Is not a logical argument in light of the evidence we’re accepting arguendo, because the answer is: anyone with the power to do those things could have done it.
If you’re going to premise one powerful, supernatural being, capable of doing those things, you’ve opened the door to include any number of powerful, supernatural beings. If you get to premise that God can do those things, then I can just as easily premise that a multitude of beings other than God can do those things, and there’s no rational argument that can be made against that.
So what we are left with is the question: how would I know any being claiming to be God is actually God?
WJM, good points.
William J Murray,
You’re missing the point. We’re ASSUMING that God exists and that he spoke to you in a way that convinced you that God spoke to you. However, the same dynamic would emerge if we ASSUME that God does not exist and that some weird hallucination, space alien, or college prankster had spoken to you. However, you have more tools available in the former case.
ASSUMING that you’re convinced that God has spoken to you and had given you the mission, how would you go about fulfilling the mission?
For what it’s worth, there were several instances in the Bible where people did actually question whether God (or an angel of God) was speaking to them, so you’ve already confirmed that case for me.
Again, your mission is to convince people that God gave you a specific message about his love, and you have a number of natural and supernatural (whatever you can imagine) powers available to you, however coercion is not one of them (threats, bribery, blackmail, beatings, terror, etc.).
Being convinced, what would you do to fulfil this mission?
-Q
as to, “For what it’s worth, there were several instances in the Bible where people did actually question whether God (or an angel of God) was speaking to them,”
WJM, (given his mental reality theory (MRT) where his first person experience is paramount, and, IMHO, borders on solipsism), should really be impressed with God’s “I am” answer right after the burning bush when Moses asked God what he should tell the people,
Shoot, that “I am” reply from God is right down WJM’s MRT alley as far as I can tell. 🙂
Querius said:
There is no way any being could talk to me, nothing that any being could do, that would convince it was God, because I have no rational way of reaching that conclusion.
Here’s the problem with that question: any version of “me” that can be convinced that some being talking to me is God is not me, because nothing could convince of that, because I’m a rational person and there’s no logical way for me to reach the conclusion that that being is, in fact, God.
So if was ME, and some being did all that to try and convince me it was God, it would fail, and my response would be “Uhm, appreciate the offer, but no thanks. Find someone else.” I can’t tell you what I would do if I was convinced because whatever version of me that could be convinced would be entirely different from me.
I don’t know why you’re asking me about this. I assume that the people who were convinced that God was talking to them went out and did whatever they would do to tell other people about it if that’s what the believe God told them to do, or what they were supposed to do.
BA77 said:
I am impressed by that answer. That doesn’t mean the being that said it is God. I’m impressed by a lot of your answers, BA77. That doesn’t mean I think you’re God. Being impressive, being able to do supernatural things, doesn’t mean that being is God. There’s no way to evidence or reason your way to that conclusion as far as I can tell because it requires circular reasoning – assuming (1) God is capable of doing, and would do those things, and (2) assuming that only God is capable. There’s no reason, as far as I can tell, to assume those things.
WJM, “I am impressed by that answer. That doesn’t mean the being that said it is God.”
WJM, you don’t seem to realize that ‘you’, (via your MRT which, IMHO, borders on solipsism), face the same standard/dilemma in convincing other people that you exist as you have placed on God to prove his existence to you.
You say, via your MRT, that you unquestionalbly exist and that external physical reality does not actually exist. I say prove it to me. Nothing you could ever possibly say or do could ever convince me that ‘you’ actually exist and that a external physical reality does not actually exist, especially if, like you, I had a prior bias against accepting any of the ‘external’ evidence that you offered to me for your personal existence. I could just as well sit back and play the ‘philosophical zombie’ argument on you all day long if I so chose to do so.
BA77 said:
No, that’s not the issue at hand. I’m convinced God exists; God doesn’t have to prove that to me because it’s a logical necessity.
Under my MRT, I’m convinced that other people exist, because – under my MRT – it’s logically inescapable that other people exist. Which means, BTW, that “my” MRT does not “border on solipsism” because solipsism is logically incompatible with the premises of my MRT.
“I exist” is unquestionable under any rationally coherent ontology. My MRT does not assert that “an external physical reality does not exist.”
Why on Earth would I try to prove it to you? What do I care if you believe I exist or not? What do I care if you believe MRT or not?
BA77,
Your argument seems to me to be that if God can’t prove to me that he is God, then if follows that, even if you and I met in person, you could not prove to me that you are BA77. Sure you could; you could tell me your name and address in a private message, then I could travel to your place of residence, knock on your door, you come out and introduce yourself, and I ask you for a form of photo ID. Sure, if it was an elaborate scam, I could erroneously think I had met BA77 from these forums, but I think after talking with you a while I could ascertain with a high degree of confidence whether or not the person I met was BA77 from this forum.
But, if some being talks to me from a burning bush and does supernatural things, what frame of reference do I have for ascertaining, with a high degree of confidence, that the being I’m talking to is God? I have no frame of reference; I have no means of validating the identity of that being.
WJM, “My MRT does not assert that “an external physical reality does not (actually) exist.””
REALLY?
wBA77:
Notice that nowhere in what you quoted do I assert that under MRT, an external physical reality doesn’t exist.
,,, “nowhere in what you quoted do I assert that under MRT, an external physical reality doesn’t (actually) exist.”
And yet per WJM, “the “external, physical world” perspective can only ever be an irrational belief in an imaginary world – or perhaps more appropriately, a delusion.”
Oh well, I guess, since only WJM’s personal perspective really matters in his MRT, ‘delusion’ must mean something other than what ‘external, physical’ dictionaries define it as meaning.
William J Murray,
Yep. And this clearly demonstrates your a priori mental processing that excludes anything that challenges your thinking!
But you’re actually right on this point: The fact that you cannot reach certain conclusions by your logic is actually supported in mathematics and logic.
In 1931, mathematician, logician, and philosopher Kurt Gödel published his two incompleteness theorems that demonstrate not all truth can be derived from any single axiomatic system. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . . .
Here’s a quote about Gödel’s incompleteness theorems from John von Neumann, mathematician, physicist, computer scientist, engineer and polymath.
This astonishing discovery in mathematics and logic destroys your position.
-Q
Q: of further note from John von Neumann :
Querius said:
I also have a priori mental processing that excludes being talked into 1+1=3, A = not-A, and the idea that square circles exist. When you come up with a logical way for me being able to identify a being as God (other than as ground of existence,) let me know.
BA77:
The statement you quote is about belief in a world external of (universal) mind. I demonstrated how such a belief is irrational because one cannot gather evidence for such a world even in principle. That is not the same thing as claiming that “there is no world external of mind.” The same inescapable inability to gather evidence for such a world also means you cannot prove it doesn’t exist. Why would I assert that something (other than an instantiation of a logical contradiction) does not exist?
Just because a belief is irrational, such as: “the burning bush speaking to me is God because it says so,” doesn’t mean the irrational belief isn’t true. It may be that the being speaking as a burning bush is God, but there is no rational reason to believe it to true.
Bornagain77 @75,
Thanks for the additional quote from John von Neumann that demonstrates all logical systems (such as Seversky’s) have inner contradictions!
1 + 1 = 3 can indeed be true in the world of chemical reactions. A single trans-dimensional object can indeed be be both a square and a circle. Certainly, if the manifestation of a 3D cylinder passing through a 2D plane can be a circle or a square (or other 2D geometric shapes), then our viewing a 4D tesseract passing through our 3D space can appear to us as changing its 3D shape (if its orientation is pointy side first) and a fixed radius 4D sphere passing through our 3D space would appear as a sphere that grows larger and then smaller as it passes through.
All these prove that we should be extremely open and humble when considering God, and that we cannot reach God neither with a physical Tower of Babel nor any system of logic. God’s existence and presence can only be revealed to us either directly or by his creation.
-Q
WJM, “The statement you quote is about belief in a world external of (universal) mind.”
Yet, you made no such ‘qualification’ to the ‘universal’ Mind of God in your original statement.
Were you being purposely ambiguous in your original statement, or has your theory now ‘evolved’ since you first wrote those words last year? i.e. “the “external, physical world” perspective can only ever be an irrational belief in an imaginary world – or perhaps more appropriately, a delusion.”
Moreover, I have my own ‘personal experience’ of debating you on the subject,,,
Querius/57
I’m still around but I seem to have missed the bit where you “destroyed” or “shot down” my stupid assertions.
Seversky,
You can find my synopsis of the overwhelming manuscript evidence for the existence of Jesus from the writing of ancient skeptics in my post @19. The historical Jesus is no longer challenged by qualified scholars, but I’m not suggesting that they necessarily believe that he was the prophesied Messiah or that he rose from the dead, just that he was NOT mythical or fictional.
While I have no illusion that you will allow any evidence no matter how compelling to shake you from your belief that Jesus was mythical or fictional, I do find it necessary to contradict your outdated and unsupported assertions to that effect.
There’s a lot of other evidence available regarding Jesus, but I chose to limit the evidence I presented to what ancient skeptics wrote about Jesus.
-Q
Seversky, in spite of all contrary evidence presented to him by Querius, stubbornly clings to his delusion that Jesus did not even exist, i.e. was a ‘mythical figure’.
Yet even Richard Dawkins himself, (whom Seversky has held in high esteem), when confronted by John Lennox on his claim that Jesus did not even exist, was at least honest enough to backtrack and state, “I take that back. Jesus existed.”
Bart Ehrman himself, another hero for atheists/agnostics, stated that, “These views, (that Jesus did not exist), are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology. Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.”
In the following video, Bart Ehrman tells an atheist, during a live broadcast, that ‘no serious Bible historian doubts that Jesus existed’:??
Thus Seversky is apparently, in his personal hostility against Christianity, willing to believe something that ”no serious Bible historian doubts’. i.e. the fact that Jesus existed.
It is very interesting to note that this microcosm of Seversky’s very unreasonable bias against the very existence ofJesus encapsulates, in miniature, Seversky’s very unreasonable bias against Intelligent Design in general.
In other words, no matter how much one may walk through the, IMHO, ironclad logic, and evidence, for Intelligent Design, Seversky will still, against all reason, deny that the evidence for Intelligent Design even exists.
Of related note to the very unreasonable bias that Seversky and other dogmatic atheists have, studies have now established that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, (including atheists), and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their “knee jerk” design inference!
In other words, it is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Intelligent Design in nature and biology, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided personal reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Intelligent Design that they themselves are seeing in nature.
Perhaps the two most famous quotes of leading atheists suppressing their ‘knee jerk’ design inference are the following two quotes:
Personally, I certainly would not like to be in the shoes of atheists, (who are apparently willingly ‘suppressing the truth’), when they die.
Verse:
BA77 said:
I was not ambiguous, I stated it directly and you quoted it.
I was unambiguously, directly talking about belief and world-view perspective.
Where are you imagining that world, BA77? Where would you be experiencing that imagined world, BA77? You might as well be claiming that you can draw a square circle. It can’t be done. You can say the words “I can draw a square circle.” You can say the words, “I can imagine a world that exists independent of mind.” But, neither can actually be accomplished.
Seversky,
Maybe I missed it. Did you claim that Jesus never existed? If so, why? What difference does it make if Jesus existed or not?
I don’t see how it makes any difference if Jesus existed, or even if everything written about what Jesus did actually occurred; there’s no way to logically, evidentially connect Jesus to God other than circular reasoning. It doesn’t seem to me to be a hill worth defending.
Querius said:
Wrong. You might as well be saying that you can add one drop of water to another drop of water and still have only one drop of water, or add one set of blocks to another set of blocks and still only have one set of blocks. 1+1=2 must be applied to the same relevant commodity the same way. You’re switching perspectives, thus identifying two different relevant commodities – different perspectives. In the drop of water scenario, the relevant commodity is volume. In your scenario, the relevant commodity is the perspective of the circle on the plane at a point in time, OR the 3D cylinder. You don’t get to switch perspectives and claim you are addressing the same relevant commodity.
A square or a circle is identified as a two dimensional object. The two-dimensional object one experiences at a point in time cannot be both a square and a circle. It can be a combination of a square and a circle, like a circle drawn inside a square, but again, that’s a different relevant commodity: it’s a combination of the two things. The square is not a circle, and the circle is not a square.
WJM doubles down on his bluff.
Once again, I call his bluff.
WJM is (blatantly) confusing the fact that I can only imagine, via my mind, a world without me existing in it with the fact that the ‘external, physical,’ world is NOT dependent on my mind, nor on any other human mind, for its existence.
WJM, for someone who prides himself on his logical acumen, you seem to be having a very difficult time grasping this extremely simple point I am making. The ‘external, physical’,’ world is NOT dependent on MY MIND, NOR ANY OTHER HUMAN MIND, for its existence. It is dependent on the (infinite) Mind of God for its continued existence. (whether I exist in this world or not!)
Verse:
And here is the full context of the preceding verse that links the ‘fullness of God’ to Jesus:
Verse:
Supplemental note to WJM saying “there’s no way to logically, evidentially connect Jesus to God”
I beg to differ,
BA77 said:
I’ve repeatedly stated in my discussions about this that I’m talking about “external of universal mind.” This is why I don’t say “your” mind or “my” mind. I’ve flatly stated that of course an infinite number of things exist outside of MY mind – meaning, the local arrangement of my psychological perspective and what I personally observe and experience.
For example, here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-universal-mind-is-a-reasonable-idea-says-bernardo-kastrup/
BA77 said:
“How could any being other than God possibly do this, or leave this evidence” is not a logical, evidential connection to God. The only rational answer would be: any being with the power to do that, or any being whose resurrection would leave that evidence, whether it had anything to do with God or not.
WJM, “I’ve flatly stated that of course an infinite number of things exist outside of MY mind”
So now you believe that an external, physical, world exists outside your, or my, mind?
But,, but,,, you chastised me precisely for believing a external, physical, world can exist outside of my mind?
Oh well, whatever WJM, you seem very ambiguous and confused about exactly what your theory actually entails and what it does not entail.
Moreover, your allusion to the ‘foggy’ concept of a ‘universal mind’, (which sounds suspiciously ‘New Age” to me), instead of you appealing to the (infinite) Mind of God, certainly does not help clarify, and solidify, your Mental Theory on a more solid ‘scientific’ foundation in my book..
As to you not accepting Jesus resurrection from the dead as proof that Jesus was God incarnate, well I guess you will figure that out when you bow your knees to Jesus and confess that He is Lord.
William J Murray @85,
Thanks for making my point about the relevance of context, definitions, and perspectives.
2 apples plus 1 orange equals 3 items, so yes, you can add dissimilar items. But in context of chemistry, 2 molecules of hydrogen plus 1 molecule of oxygen reacts to form 2 molecules of water, not 3 molecules. Your example of droplets is also appropriate. Also, notice that the speed of light from the headlights in a fast moving automobile is additive, thus c + v(auto) = c.
My point was that our perspectives regarding the Creator of space-time, mass-energy, gravity, quantum mechanics, consciousness, information, and everything else, not going to have our limited perspectives and intelligence. As I said before . . .
-Q
BA77 said:
I explained this in my post here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/outlining-a-functional-mental-reality-theory/
This clearly demonstrates that yes, I’ve always said there is lots of information outside of my particular mind, and that an enormous amount of information, the block of data that informs our apparent experience of an external physical world, is being shared by multiple people. I’ve also stated that there is an infinite amount of data that represents entirely different worlds. So while there is an infinite amount of information that is not currently within my personal, local mind, it still resides in universal mind, and there are ways for me to direct my psychology to find and process that information – which I’ve had some success doing.
BA77 said:
I corrected your misinterpretations of several things I’ve said.
Querius said:
Whatever God is or is capable of, it cannot be the deliberate creator of space-time. That’s a logical impossibility, as far as I can tell. Also, God cannot be the creator of consciousness or information.
To be clear, God may be the ground wherein such things can be said to exist, but God cannot perform a logically impossible task. Not even God can draw a square circle.
WJM holds that “there’s no way to logically, evidentially connect Jesus to God”
In rebuttal I said “I beg to differ” and referenced this video:
In response WJM again doubted that “ONLY” God would have the “infinite” power necessary to resurrect Jesus from the dead and stated “any being with the power to do that, or any being whose resurrection would leave that evidence, whether it had anything to do with God or not.”
Obviously, implicit in WJM’s remark is the assumption that it did not take the infinite power of God to resurrect Jesus from the dead, but some powerful, but finite, being “with the power to do that” could also possibly have resurrected himself, or someone else, from the dead.
WJM is wrong in his assumption that it did not take the infinite Mind of God to resurrect Jesus from the dead but that a finite, but powerful, being could possibly resurrect himself, or someone else, from the dead.
As I explained in the video that I referenced, “Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything””, the main problem in mathematically unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics into a single mathematical “theory of everything” is that there is a ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that forever separates the two theories from ever being unified into a single mathematical framework.
Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the “infinite mathematical divide” situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
The theory is not renormalizable.”
And as theoretical physicist Sera Cremonini stated, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”
And as Michio Kaku himself noted in the following video, “In fact, you get an infinite sequence of infinities, (which is) infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein’s original theory (i.e. General Relativity).”
In short, it would take the ‘actual infinity’ of God, as opposed to the ‘potential infinity’ of a finite, yet powerful, being to bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics,
At this point someone may very well ask, “What does bridging the infinite mathematical divide between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics” have to do with proving that infinite God resurrected Jesus from the dead?”
Glad you asked,
Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:
Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
And I hold ‘growing large without measure’ to be a ‘lesser quality’ infinity, i.e. to be merely a ‘potential infinity’, than the ‘actual infinity’ that is arrived at when the denominator goes to zero in a fraction.
The main reason for why I hold growing large without measure to be a ‘lesser quality infinity’, i.e. to be merely a ‘potential infinity’, than the ‘actual infinity’ that is arrived at when the denominator goes to zero in a fraction is because something that begins to grow large without measure must necessarily have some sort of beginning in time and must also necessarily have some sort of preexistent infinite space to grow into. Whereas, on the other hand, to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero is to force a finite object into a type of infinity that can have no discernible beginning in time nor discernible place in space. Which is to say, to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero is to force a finite object into a ‘actual infinity’ as opposed to the finite object merely being a ‘potential infinity’ that begins to grow large without measure.
But do we have any empirical evidence that Jesus Christ bridged the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics with the ‘actual infinity’ of his resurrection from the dead?
Yes we do!
When scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, (which is, by far, the MOST scientifically scrutinized ancient relic of man),
When scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
As can be seen in the following ‘backside’ image, and holographic image videos, from the Shroud of Turin, there is no flattening on the backside of the body as would be expected if the image on the Shroud had formed if a dead body had merely been laying flat on the Shroud as the image was being formed.
For anyone who doubts that the holographic images of the Shroud of Turin are authentic, (or for anyone who just wants to do further research), here is the main website describing how the holographic images were derived:
Moreover, in the following video Isabel Piczek, who made a sculpture from the Shroud of Turin states that, “The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.”
As well, Kevin Moran, an optical engineer who has studied the Shroud of Turin, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”
Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud of Turin also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was also dealt with.
In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.
An atheist recently complained to me that the preceding article is a secondary source, and indeed it is, so I traced the primary source for the article down to here,
And here are the slides to a 2017 powerpoint presentation that was given by Paolo Di Lazzaro where he, (at about the 30th slide of the presentation), discusses the 34 thousand billion watt result,
Specifically, Lazzaro’s (approx.) 30th slide in his powerpoint presentation states,
That it is possible for the human body to emit such biophotonic ‘quantum light’ is revealed by the following papers and photograph:
Thus in conclusion, (and contrary to ‘whatever’ WJM may believe in his, ahem, ‘theory’), when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
As the following verse states, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”
BA77 said:
First, I want to say you’re right, and I’m wrong. I also want to apologize for making a very sloppy argument and using very sloppy words and concepts in my side of the argument.
It absolutely took the power of God to produce the effects you describe.
But then, it takes the power of God for anything at all to exist or occur. The question I think is the root of this debate is whether or not the resurrection of Jesus is an indication that God is the same as the God you are saying this evidence supports – specifically, the Christian God.
As you should know, I hold the existence of God as ground of all existence, being, consciousness, mind and all experience as a logical necessity. So we are not disagreeing on whether or not God exists, but only on whether or not the Christian God correctly characterizes God beyond what we agree on. When I said, “..whether or not that has anything to do with God,” it was fully MY BAD that I said that in such a poor way. I am entirely at fault for the mess I made of this argument.
Your argument seems to be that the incredible miracle of the resurrection and the evidence it left behind is evidence for the Christian God; IOW, that it is evidence not only of the qualities and nature of ground-of-existence God that we agree on, but it specifically supports the further characterizations of God found in Christianity.
Furthermore, while the resurrection and the evidence it left behind is at least apparently unique, the uniqueness of that event makes the proper rational assessment of it more difficult. While unique, is the resurrection and the evidence it left behind more miraculous a situation than, say, everyone’s capacity to carry on rational thought in their minds, move about during the day, and have any experience at all? We all exist as an in a miracle, the “miracle-ness” belied by its ubiquitous nature. My sitting on the porch, enjoying the morning sunshine sipping my delicious coffee is no less a profound miracle than the resurrection of Jesus and the evidence it left behind. The only reason one is considered a miracle and the other not is its apparent uniqueness.
For me, the heart of the debate here is whether or not the resurrection and the evidence directly, logically supports the further, specific characterizations of God as asserted by Christianity. That is the specific “God-characterizations” I was talking about (very poorly) in my exchanges.
What further characterizations am I talking about? There are several; one is the division of the afterlife into two dichotomous arenas, heaven and hell. The whole sin and forgiveness structure. That God deliberately created space-time or really deliberately created anything. There are probably other characteristics if I thought about it more.
I don’t see how the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection logically and evidentially support those (and perhaps other) specific characteristics of the Christian God and how Christianity describes the specific existential arrangements God created – not without circular reasoning that leads back to assertions made in the Bible.
I’ll let my response stand as stated, and see no need at this time to add, or clarify, anything about the ‘logical necessity’ of the infinite Mind of God raising Jesus from the dead.
Although, I will add this following tidbit that was revealed via holographic imaging of the Shroud of Turin:
Verse:
William J Murray @91 wrote:
Do you see anything in what you wrote that not a completely groundless assertion? As such, it’s completely worthless.
That’s funny because I can:
1. Draw a circle.
2. Divide the circle into four equal arc segments. The geometric shape is still a circle.
3. Increase the radius of each arc to double its original radius and notice that the geometric shape is still a circle. Then continue increasing the radius of each arc equally using the same function on each arc.
4. Continue increasing the radius until the radius of each arc is infinite. Mathematicians do this all the time with the lim of functions. Notice that an arc of infinite radius has a geometric shape identical with a line. The four lines thus have a geometric shape identical with a square but remain a circle by definition.
So there’s your stupid square circle. Maybe God will someday show you how this works.
-Q
William J Murray @84,
Not surprisingly, Seversky has once again vanished after I destroyed his argument @19. No qualified scholar currently defends the position that Jesus was a myth or a fictional character, so you’re right that Seversky apparently died on that hill by himself.
-Q
Querius:
You cannot make a deliberate choice to create time unless time already exists, otherwise, nothing can precede that choice in order for it to be a deliberate choice. IOW, there logically had to be a “before” and “after” the choice the made, which means time already necessarily existed.
Also, where was “God” before He created space?
What does it mean for the “ground of existence” to make a deliberate choice? A deliberate choice requires being self aware. To be self-aware, one must have some way of identify self. That can only be done in comparison to not-self. If there is no “not-self” to identify self in relationship to, self-awareness is not logically possible. “A” doesn’t mean anything whatsoever unless there is a “not-A” to compare it against. Universal, absolute ubiquity does not allow for self-awareness, and so no deliberate choice can be made.
Querius,
So we can keep fidelity to the perspective commodity in question, let me rephrase then:
Even God cannot draw a 2″ by 2″ square circle with a pencil when viewed as a 2D perspective on a flat sheet of paper by regular human beings.
William J Murray @101,
Thank you for conceding the point (and moving the goalposts). Yes, I can actually think of a way to do this because you didn’t specify the shape of the pencil and the curvature of the space-time containing the flat sheet of paper.
Of course, if I did, you would simply move the goalposts again. My point still stands:
-Q
William J Murray @100 wrote:
There was no “before” in OUR space-time, which is believed to have came into existence 13.7 billion years ago.
It should be obvious that before God created space-time as we experience it, He was not operating in it. God told Moses that His name is “I AM.” Other places in the Bible indicate that God exists eternally in our past, our present, and our future. God describes himself in many other places in the scriptures, but it reports that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and God’s ways are not our ways. It warns us that they are vastly higher than ours. You shouldn’t find this as a surprise.
Currently, we don’t really understand time, but we do recognize the possibility of asynchronous events, multidimensional time*, and state machines. I don’t want to project any these onto God because most certainly my speculation will be wrong as is yours.
-Q
* For example, the time remaining in download can increase as well as decrease depending on your download speed. Time remaining is not necessarily linked to our clock time, which can also vary with our velocity or the presence of a gravitational field.
Querius said:
I’m not the one moving the goal post, Querius. You are. You know exactly what I mean when I say it, and then you try and figure out some way around what I’m saying by throwing in different elements and perspectives. You do realize you’re doing the exact same thing others do here that you complain so much about, don’t you?
God cannot create an A that is both A and not-A at the same time, in the same relevant way.
Also, you and I both know I did not concede any point. Why do you say things like that when you know they aren’t true?
Querius @103:
Nothing you say in this comment answers the logical objections I raised to the Christian God.
WJM, as a first rough remark, have you ever considered that our spacetime domain is a subsidiary, created world within a wider reality with a necessary being as root of reality? KF
William J Murray @104,
As every reader can see, you’re the one that specified a “square circle,” and I found a way (actually two ways) that demonstrated my point about how profoundly crucial our perspectives are in discussing anything about God.
After being humiliated with my solution, you then added several MORE constraints such as “a pencil” and “a flat piece of paper” to avoid my solution. This is called moving the goalposts.
All I did was find a solution that met your original constraints. As I’m writing this response, yet another solution occurs to me (making two more solutions) that I won’t share since you’ll simply respond with adding more constraints.
My point still stands . . .
-Q
Figure out which proverb to follow…. Proverbs 26:4 or Proverbs 26:5
WJM, to deny what is right in front of you is foolish. I get that you have constructed some sort of plausible way for you to deny things (at least in your mind) but man… you should just surrender to Christ. It’s a great thing.
William J Murray @105,
LOL. You’re saying that my reply didn’t destroy your argument simply by asserting that it didn’t. This reminds me of the undefeatable black knight:
https://youtu.be/ZmInkxbvlCs?t=78
-Q
Zweston @108,
So very true! Also, take a look at Jeremiah 2:13, which I think is also very appropriate!
Habitual skepticism questions everything but itself.
What William J Murray, or anyone else with a rigid belief system–either scientific, religious, or political–that’s not truly based on logic, experience, or revelation should ask themselves is, “Why really do I believe as I do?”
They should examine themselves deeply and truthfully in all frankness. I know I have.
-Q
William J Murray/84
No, I don’t claim that Jesus never existed. My position is that the existing documentary evidence is far from proving his existence beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no problem with the possibility that there was an itinerant preacher of that name roaming around first-century Palestine with a small band of followers. Claiming he was the incarnation of the Christian God is little different from claiming he was a Force-wielding Jedi Knight who was visiting Earth long ago from a galaxy far, far away.
It doesn’t make any difference to me but it clearly makes a great deal of difference to some here. I think the hill is worth defending if for no other reason than to remind them that there are questions that need to be answered which they are afraid to ask.
WJM @ 100
There is another option apart from a not-self. Suppose that a person is one thing, one self, with aspects such as the “I” and thoughts and feelings.
Now identification can go thus:
I am not a thought. I am a thinker but not a thought. I am a feeler, but not a feeling. Yet thoughts and feelings are aspects of the larger me (the self).
Querius/99
I’m sorry to disappoint you but I’m still here.
I had hoped you had evidence for Jesus’s existence other than the usual suspects.
Jesus mythicism may be a minority position but it does exist as a position held by credible scholars and is worth defending to prevent the believers from becoming too smug and complacent.
Sev, the selective hyperskepticism required to dismiss so impactful and well documented a personage as Jesus of Nazareth removes you to the fringe of scholarship. Do you exert similar doubts as to the reality of the classical past in general, if so why; if not, why not? KF
Querius, on square circles you have tried shifting context from what is implied, a planar figure or its 3-d extension which at one and the same time has core properties of squarishness and circularity for one and the same entity under the same circumstances. Such do not exist. The underlying point is, distinct identity of a possible entity requires coherence of core characteristics and circumstances. KF
Origenes @112:
Sense of self, thoughts and feelings are not the ground for sense of self, thoughts and feelings, which you explicitly referred to as “the larger me.” IOW, “the larger me” is not consciously aware and cannot make such identifications and distinctions as itself. It is only a step removed from that being that anything can become consciously aware.
Here’s the kicker: it is not one particular self that arises, so to speak, from the ground of being; all possible “selfs” must also exist, because we’re talking about the ground of being as infinite potential information. The ground of being is also the ground for any space-time experience, but is not itself space-time. It cannot “produce” sentient beings in any order; all possible beings, all possible information, all potentials simply, simultaneously exist as the co-existent consequence of the existence of the ground of being.
So, does the Christian God, as a very powerful being, exist? I’d say that’s close to a certainty. Is it the only such God? I’d say that’s just as certainly not the case. Does the Christian heaven and hell exist? Certainly – as would every other possible afterlife scenario and situation. They all must exist because nothing can change the infinite potential the ground of existence innately provides.
Seversky @111 – fair enough.
Julius Caesar never existed. Well, my position is that the existing documentary evidence is far from proving his existence beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no problem with a lone Roman thinking he can actually be a lone ruler and then making it happen, albeit briefly.
seversky:
And yet the ONLY reason it is called the first century is because of His existence. Weird, eh?
@WJM
Self-identification does neither explain nor impact conscious self-awareness (the “I”). I experience conscious self-awareness irrespective of what I consider myself to be or not to be. One can be a convinced solipsist and it won’t diminish or impact in any other way the experience of conscious self-awareness (the “I”).
Conscious self-awareness, that is the experience of the “I”, comes from the “I” perceiving itself.
Seversky @113,
On the contrary, I’m absolutely delighted that you’ve returned for another thrashing—not for my ego’s sake (who cares), but for the sake of your own eternal soul!
I’d actually spent several hours assembling the witnesses to Jesus from online manuscripts capturing the words and thoughts of people hostile to Jesus from that time period. You, on the other hand, simply dismissed this evidence as “the usual suspects,” providing zero justification, zero scholarly references, and zero manuscripts to the contrary.
No, I wasn’t surprised or disappointed at your reaction, but I was delighted that Bornagain77 and others appreciated my work, which they’re free to use in any manner, saving them the time and energy in the future, as they have likewise done for me on other occasions!
So, when you asked me to draw a 2” x 2” circle with a pencil on a flat sheet of paper, several additional delightful possibilities presented themselves.
The first circle was drawn on a square piece of paper and the second on an equilateral triangular piece of paper, both being 2” x 2”.
First, I considered the circle drawn on the square piece of paper, the “square circle.” I noticed that the pencil left a thin layer of graphite on the paper of non-zero thickness.
I can weigh the paper on a microgram scale before and after applying the graphite to get an approximation of the weight of the graphite and, using my B&L binocular dissection microscope to measure the average width of the graphite deposited, I can calculate the 3D thickness of the graphite circle.
Because I used a very precise mechanical pencil held vertically to the paper, the cross section of the soft graphite turned out to be square! Thus, the shape and volume of the circle that I drew is defined by its radius, its lineweight, and its thickness. The cross section of the toroidal shape you asked me to draw is square—a square circle!
Next, I drew the second circle on the 2” x 2” triangular piece of paper holding my mechanical pencil at an angle and continuously rotating it as a drew the circle, which maintained more pressure at the acute angle of my mechanical pencil with the paper. Thus, the cross section of the toroidal shape on the triangular piece of paper was a right triangle—a triangular circle!
Yes, I have even more solutions to square circles not necessarily involving paper and pencil.
If I as a mere mortal can come up with these “square circles,” how much more so can the Creator with an infinite IQ produce?
My point still stands . . .
-Q
BA77: God would have the “infinite” power necessary to resurrect Jesus from the dead
Why would that require “infinite power”? Or any power at all. Just rearrange the proteins in the body (etc) and reconnect the consciousness to the brain. How does this require infinite power? Even within the system, when sperm meets egg, a process begins that leads to a human body, without anything like infinite power. Something on the order of a couple hundred watts is necessary. But if God controls the system, God could just do it without any energy at all required from within the system. Just poof the structures into the desired form.
–Ram
William J Murray @116,
So, what does “the Christian God” (what’s that?) reveal about His existence? The Hebrew prophets, through whom God chose to reveal himself, had them write the following (my emphasis added):
As to the “existence” of other gods, this is simply human speculation or, to be generous, the product of collections of admired attributes as in the case of Athena or Ares.
In addition, people who practice occult arts might also encounter hateful lying spirits, demons who pose as gods or goddesses, as did Lucifer who wanted to be like God and receive the worship of people deceived by him (I recently had a couple of conversations with one of these unhappy and deceived individuals who says she met and worships Lucifer).
Jesus warned us about false teachers and told us to look at the fruit in their lives, good or evil, to determine their true identity.
Don’t be deceived.
-Q
Assuming that this is true, it is a very unfortunate state of affairs for God. The loneliness must be close to unbearable.
Ram, I know you will probably call it “just a bunch of B.S.”, (like you did the 34 thousand billion watt finding for the Shroud of Turin), but anyways, defeating death that is inherent in this universe, (i.e. specifically defeating the entropy associated with the space-time of general relativity)’, is a bit trickier than just, as you put it, “rearrange the proteins in the body (etc) and reconnect the consciousness to the brain”.
Quote and Verses:
Origenes @124,
Assuming that God is just like us humans, he would also get super hungry and thirsty without anything to eat or drink, and he created light so he could see in the darkness.
In other words, I think it’s reasonable to assume your characterization of God is way too small.
-Q
Querius @126
Please do better, you are being very childish. Motte-and-bailey fallacy.
Origenes @127,
Historically, it’s called the reductio ad absurdum argument and was well known by the “very childish” Greek philosophers.
-Q
Querius,
For you information, nowhere did I say that God has a physical body and gets “super hungry and thirsty without anything to eat or drink.” You baselessly pretend that I did. Motte-and-bailey fallacy.
BA77 @125
Presumedly God is not bound by any such limitation. He can rearrange matter at will without using energy within spacetime. Your citations regarding energy within spacetime are irrelevant.
Well Ram, I can see what you are hung up now, I’m sorry for my poor word choice. I did not mean ‘infinite power’ as in ‘infinite energy’ as you are thinking, but instead I meant, and I thought I was clear about it, that it would take the ‘infinite knowledge’ of God to bridge the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ between general relativity and quantum mechanics. ,,, and that a finite, but powerful, being would not have the infinite knowledge necessary to bridge the ‘actual infinity’ that mathematically exists between the two theories.
If fact, as to how much actual power and/or energy it took, it could have been zero power/energy as far as I know, although the 34 thousand billion watt result on the Shroud of Turin, (which you termed ‘just a bunch of B.S.”), suggests that a finite, but non-negligible, amount of power/energy was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
Origenes @129,
That’s right. You didn’t, and as I said in @128:
If you’re not familiar with this type of argument, look it up online for other examples. God being lonely, or for that matter hungry, thirsty, or having trouble “seeing” in the dark are all anthropomorphisms.
-Q
Querius,
It is my impression that under Christianity God is seen as a person. I see God as a person. You seem to have a problem with that and feel the need to resort to ridicule and sarcasm. Good luck with that. I couldn’t care less.
Ram, but while we are on the subject of power/energy, and in regards to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, the following might interest you.
it is not only that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity have this unbridgeable infinite mathematical divide between them, it is also that, theoretically speaking, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity contradict each other to the point of literally blowing the entire universe apart. As Gregory Chaitin states, “There are serious problems with the traditional view that the world is a space-time continuum. Quantum field theory and general relativity contradict each other. The notion of space-time breaks down at very small distances, because extremely massive quantum fluctuations (virtual particle/antiparticle pairs) should provoke black holes and space-time should be torn apart, which doesn’t actually happen.”
Here are a few more references that drive this point about ‘tearing the universe apart’ further home,
And yet, despite the fact that both theories contradict each other to the point of literally blowing the universe apart, the fact remains that universe is not blowing itself apart and therefore, from a common sense point of view, something, or Someone, must be holding the universe together.
For the Christian this theoretical finding from our very best theories in science, (i.e. that something, or Someone, very powerful must be ‘outside the universe’ that is holding this universe together), should not be all that surprising to find out. Christianity predicted that Christ is before all things, and in him all things hold together,,,
If you guys haven’t checked out “apologetics squared” on youtube, I think you’d find it fascinating and stimulating… WJM… God isn’t lonely, because he’s three in one… He is all sufficient. In fact, without multiple persons existing as God before, you can’t really have love or humor…so the argument goes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRj56bbIUvU
Origenes @133,
No, what I refuted by the reductio ad absurdum argument was your ascribing the human emotion of loneliness to God as you wrote in @124:
There was no ridicule or sarcasm in my statements, rather I identified my objection as anthropomorphism. The second definition was quoted of the term is
-Q
Zweston @35,
Thanks and yes, I watched the video you recommended. It reminds me of 1 John 1:3,4
Concerning the perspective of God in the video, you might also consider the words of the Shema, the most important prayer in Judaism. The very last word is interesting and if you look it up in Hebrew, the word is a plural unity, echad, rather than the singular, yachid.
Finally, let me say that I’m very cautious in drawing conclusions about the nature of God that’s not explicitly revealed in the Bible. It’s just too easy to get off track due to our limited intelligence and perspectives as I’ve tried to explain in previous posts.
-Q
Thanks Zweston, and to add a few notes,
In this following video, entitled “The Ontological Argument for the Triune God”, refines the Ontological argument for a maximally great Being into a proof that, because of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’, God must exist in more than one person:??
i.e. without this distinction we are stuck with the logical contradiction of maximally great love being grounded in ones own self which is the antithesis of maximally great love. i.e. selfishness as opposed to selflessness
And this argument is indeed a powerful argument for the Triune God of Christianity. In the following video, a former Muslim confesses that this form of the ontological argument for the Triune God, i.e. maximally great love, is a devastating argument against the Muslim, (and Judaism), conception of a unitarian God:
Further notes:
Further note:
Of further note to Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity contradicting each other to the point of literally blowing the entire universe apart.
At the 6:09 minute mark of the following video, Hugh Ross comments on the ‘disturbing implications’ that “dark energy” has given atheistic astrophysicists
And here is the ‘Disturbing Implications’ paper from the atheistic astrophysicists, that Dr. Ross referenced in the preceding video, that was withdrawn because of mounting evidence for a Cosmological Constant (Dark Energy), that speaks of the ‘disturbing implications’ of the finely tuned expanding universe (1 in 10^120 cosmological constant). The implications were ‘disturbing/ for them precisely because, quote-unquote, it “would have required a miracle”.
And here are the evidences which made Dyson, Kleban and Susskind ultimately pull their ‘disturbing implications’ paper from consideration,
Dr. Hugh Ross also listed several Bible verses that ‘predicted’ God ’’Stretching out the Heavens’,
The following verse, since it makes an indirect reference to Jesus walking on water, is my favorite out of that group of verses:
Zwetson @
God is depicted in the bible as having human emotions, such as joy, love, anger, grief and a remarkable sensitivity about the (mis)use of his name. Yet when I suggest that, since (by his own testimony) there is but one like him, he must be experiencing loneliness, I am told that God is above such petty human emotions, because he is in fact 3 persons(?). Why is that?
F/N: Once God is good and wise and loving, God is personal as such are attributes of persons. It is not “Christianity’s god” or the like phrases of distanciation and hinted at dismissal, it is God. The God seen at basic level in ethical theism. Thereafter there are debates as to who best understands God, to which the best answer is, he who rose from death with 500 witnesses, showing nonpareil power as sign of truth. KF
Querius said:
Those are assertions. If I meet a talking, flying tiger and the tiger (or its followers) make assertions that it is God, there’s no rational reason for me to accept those assertions just because a talking, flying tiger is a miracle.
We have the testimony and information from several sources, including NDEs, that other such entities exist, so no, it’s not just speculation.
Dismissing all evidence to the contrary as being the product of deception is circular and/or convenient reasoning.
Zweston said:
This is exactly the same basic argument I made God as ground of being cannot have self-awareness, personality, deliberacy, etc. It’s logically unavailable to such a being. Any sentient individual personality requires some way of existing as something other than the “ground of being.” It must be a local psychology that exists within the ground of being but is not, psychologically speaking, the ground of being.
But the thing is, the ground of being has no sense of time, order and space. There are ramifications to that; it cannot “create” anything because it is the ground by which any local psychological individual can experience “creating.”
The inescapable consequence of there being a ground of existence as all potential is that every possible being, whether you call any of them “God” or not, necessarily exist. There’s no way for them not to exist. Every possible life and afterlife and experience necessarily exists. No “God” can choose just one to exist because no being can wipe potential out of existence. It can’t be done.
^^^^
Aquinas just rolled over in his grave.
BA77 said:
The thing that necessarily exists, as I’ve said repeatedly, is the ground of existence itself.
You might want to double check your logic here:
“every possible being, whether you call any of them “God” or not, necessarily exist.”
i.e. Aquinas just rolled over in his grave.
BA77: If fact, as to how much actual power and/or energy it took, it could have been zero power/energy as far as I know
Fair enough
although the 34 thousand billion watt result on the Shroud of Turin, (which you termed ‘just a bunch of B.S.”), suggests that a finite, but non-negligible, amount of power/energy was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
“Just a bunch of B.S.” was cranky and unhelpful. I apologize.
From their slides:
17 joules energy/0.00000001 seconds results in 1.7 billion watt. It is called “peak power” which is different of the commonly used “average power”.
Multiply 1.7 billion by 20,000 and you get “34 thousand billion watt.”
This is wildly misleading.
A joule is is a measurement of power, equivalent to one ampere of electric current passing through one ohm of resistence for one second. They claim that they applied 17 joules to a square centimeter of cloth in 0.00000001 seconds. But watts by definition is a measurement of joules per second, and always per second. To get a clearer idea what this really means, 17 joules spread out over a second, which is how power is typically measured, is a mere 17 watts.
According to them the Shroud image would have required 20,000 * 17 joules, or the equivalent of 300,000 watts of power. Not small. But not earth shattering. It’s like running a hair dryer for 8 days or so. What may be impressive is that it was compressed into 0.00000001 seconds, if indeed it was. But nobody knows how the power was applied to the Shroud.
At any rate, “34 thousand billion watts” were not involved. Why did they say this? Because if the power was 17 joules every 0.00000001 seconds for a full second, then yes, that would be 1.7 billion watts. But that’s not what they did. The “watts” metric is unnecessary and misleading.
–Ram
Thanks Ram for adding more detail on the actual ‘power/energy’ involved..
For me personally, the most important thing to realize is that the image formation on the Shroud was a quantum affair, not a classical affair. That is what, (to borrow Einstein’s word for quantum mechanics), makes it so ‘spooky’.
BA77 said:
Why snip something out of context? Here’s the full sentence:
They exist necessarily contingent upon there being a ground of existence as all potential. It’s tne necessary logical consequence of that necessary being. There’s a difference between a necessary being as ground for existence, and the necessary consequence of beings that ground of existence implies.
BA77: In this following video, entitled “The Ontological Argument for the Triune God”
I imagine that video may be impressive with people who are already impressed with Aquinas’s construction of God. (I am not.) Are you personally willing to defend this video, in this thread?
–Ram
WJM, the full context does not extract you from your contradiction in logic.
BA77: that universe is not blowing itself apart and therefore, from a common sense point of view, something, or Someone, must be holding the universe together.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are superb theories (to quote Sir Roger Penrose), which have extremely good precision and predictive power. But they are still theories subject to change, so it doesn’t suprise me that the universe is still holding together despite the incompatibilies of two human-made theories. 😀
For the Christian this theoretical finding from our very best theories in science, (i.e. that something, or Someone, very powerful must be ‘outside the universe’ that is holding this universe together),
I agree that something “outside the universe” exists. In fact, I am very much persuaded by the “virtual reality” view of the universe we find ourselves in.
“Christianity predicted that Christ is before all things, and in him all things hold together”
Hinduism says that about Vishnu/Krishna too. And long before. Maybe Paul stole the idea from the Hindus. Or from Philo who got it from the Greeks (demiurge) and/or from the Hindus through Philo. [Shrug] Not sure what your point is. That something is holding the universe together? Agreed. A lot of people have had a lot of ideas about that over that last 2500 years. How are you going to prove that is Jesus Christ?
At an rate, I don’t know who or what is “holding the universe together” except that it is apparently not me. 🙂
–Ram
If one is going to claim that God selected a particular set of potentials from all possible potentials to actualize, then we know that “all possible potentials” exist as such and informed God’s decision. It would also inform every decision God made going forward. We know those potentials still exist as potentials. It’s nonsensical to say that the potentials made the decision on which God personality to actualize. The Christian God as a personality is obviously just one God out of many other potential Gods. The potentials didn’t choose a particular God with a particular personality.
This is why the ground for all possible things – otherwise known as the ground of existence – cannot be the same thing as a particular God with a particular personality. The Christian God and the ground of existence are necessarily two different things.
Ram, not to go into detail in defending “The Ontological Argument for the Triune God”, but exactly how is one suppose to ground the property of ‘maximally great love’ in a unitarian God?
As I pointed out, and as seems obvious, without this ‘trinitarian’ distinction for God, of God ‘necessarily’ existing in more than one person, then we are stuck with the logical contradiction of maximally great love being grounded in ones own self which is the antithesis of maximally great love. i.e. selfishness as opposed to selflessness.
Ba77 said;
That’s because I wasn’t in a contradiction of logic in the first place 🙂 There is a difference between a causeless-cause necessary being, and the beings that necessarily exist contingent upon that premise. Which I clearly stated to start with.
Querius: Lucifer who wanted to be like God
Lucifer, aka The Son of the Dawn, aka Heylel, aka Venus.
The Hebrew name Heylel is well known by scholars to be a Ugaritic god whom Isaiah was using as a metaphorical taunt against the very human king of Babylon as it says right there in the text:
“take up this taunt against the king of Babylon “
And notice the very humans properties:
“All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb; “but you are cast out, away from your sepulchre, like a loathed untimely birth”
Satan needed a sepulchre?
“you will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land”
Satan denied a proper burial?
“May the descendants of evildoers nevermore be named!”
His descendants are cursed.
“I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north;”
That’s a reference to Mount Sapon, the home of the gods in Canannite religion.
Etc. Etc.
Do you guys ever read things in context? 😀
–Ram
WJM, to be polite, I don’t find your argument for ‘potential’ existing apart from God to be the least bit persuasive.
And if it is all the same with you, I have much better things to do today than to debate you for hours on the many fallacies that keep popping up in your, ahem, ‘theory’
Ram, “I agree that something “outside the universe” exists. In fact, I am very much persuaded by the “virtual reality” view of the universe we find ourselves in.”
🙂
Well Okie Dokie then, I guess that pretty much wraps it up for me.
Have a good day.
BA77 said:
Fortunately, I’m not trying to persuade you or anyone else.
So, how does anything potential become actual, if the ground of existence, as all potential, cannot logically make such a decision – or any decision at all?
The answer to this lies in MRT, where potentials are experienced in mind as what we call realities. Potential = actual in MRT. The ground doesn’t make decisions. All possible beings as individual personalities exist having all possible experiences available in potential. The Christian God is real, the Christian experience is real, just as all other God and non-theistic experiential realities that exist in potential are real.
Querius: I’m very cautious in drawing conclusions about the nature of God that’s not explicitly revealed in the Bible.
Well, if I were you, (and I’m not), I would be cautious about drawing conclusions about the nature of God that’s not explicitly revealed in the Hebrew Bible. After all, it came first.
Which reminds me of an old joke among Jews: why did God create Mormons? So that Christians would understand what Jews feel like. 😀
BA77,
I definitely acknowledge that the Shroud is a fascinating and impressive object. I am not yet convinced, but maybe it is exactly what some claim it is. I have nothing against that proposition whatsoever and would happily accept a verdict of “geniune.”
–Ram
Ram, glad to hear that you have an open mind on the Shroud.
Zweston: without multiple persons existing as God before, you can’t really have love or humor
God need not have human-like attributes. Only the ability to create human-like attributes.
To take your statement to the absurd, you can’t really have hate, anger, resentment without multiple persons in God. So do the “persons” within God ever argue? Are they romantic with each others? Etc.
Take the word, “love.” It’s imprecise in English and most European languages, but Koine Greek, for example, fleshes out four ideas that typically get rendered as “love” in English. Which of these would you imagine exist among the “multiple persons” within a transcendent God? …
Agape
An English term for this is “charity.” The best way to render this in modern English is to “take care of” someone or something. It could be another human or an animal. “Take care of your neighbor as you take care of yourself.” If your donkey falls in a ditch, you go rescue it. That’s agape. No feelings or emotions are necessarily implied.
Storge
This term refers to a familial bond and loyalty. Closely related to philos. A mother’s instinct for her baby, parents for their children, and siblings for each other fall into this category. It implies an opposition to any parties that may pose as a threat to the unity of the persons of the family.
Philos
Brotherly love. Closely related to storge. The feeling between friends and companions who share personal affection for each other typically over shared interests and the process of time.
Eros
Romance and sex.
Which of these do you believe apply to the timeless transcendent persons of God?
As for humor, humor is borne of irony and contradiction perceived by human brains. How would timeless transcendent persons have the kind of dynamic where irony and contradiction could arise?
Again, I say: God need not have human-like attributes. Only the ability to create human-like attributes.
–Ram
BA77: Well Okie Dokie then, I guess that pretty much wraps it up for me.
Why? If the universe is not fundamental, then it is necessarily virtual in some sense. Do I think the universe is being generated on some super computer by “aliens”? No. That’s the “simulation hypothesis” and I am not persuaded to accept it.
Whatever is making this universe occur, is unimaginable. When I say the universe is virtual, I mean it has no reality in and of itself. Never has and never will. Objects within it are informational objects that are being algorithmically processed. By way of analogy, consider a lake. Consider the waves on a lake. The waves on the water are virtual objects. It is an assymetical relation and dependency. The water exists without the waves, but the waves actively depend on the water for their existence. The waves are never independent of the water. You could say the waves are the water in motion, water in a particular state. Some might employ the term “epiphenomenon.”
I have no problem calling whatever the “water” is, “God”, the Root, the Ground of All Being. Etc.
Moreover, I agree with WJM’s views that whatever the Root is, it has all potenia within it’s ontology and that differentiated entities are “navigating” around the “highways and byways” of that potenia.
Hope that helps.
–Ram
BA77: how is one suppose to ground the property of ‘maximally great love’ in a unitarian God?
I don’t know what “maximally great love” is, Aquinas’s philosophy notwithstanding. What I do accept is that all properties and potenia exist within the Root ontology. Affection and hate. Pleasure and pain. Joy and sorrow. If your philosophy is going to assert that multiple persons are required in God to be consistent with the idea that affection exists between humans, you’re going to have to accept that hate exists among the persons of God too. You can’t have one side of the spectrum without the other. (Hate/rage is a active emotion, not merely the absense of affection, it’s opposite. Same with pleasure/pain, joy/dread.)
Speaking from a human view, did God create the conscious experience of hate, dread, and pain? If you say no, then you agree with my view. If you say yes, then to be consistent you are warranted to accept that multiple persons are not required in God to create affection, joy and pleasure. If God knows how to create the “bad” emotions in humans without God transcendentally experiencing them before creation, then he surely is able to create the “good” emotions too. Multiple persons in God are not required to have a consistent view of this.
(See my post above on “love.”)
–Ram
WJM @153
Nicely put
–Ram
If God is the ground of all existence, he is one and indivisible, since the ground of all existence is necessarily one indivisible thing..
Given that, how do we explain God’s creation as something existing outside of God? How do we get from one indivisible God, to something external to that God? God is indivisible, so it is logically impossible for him to seperate an aspect of himself and use that for ‘creation’.
Alternatively, is creation “in” God? Can it be the case that we are all in God, that is, that we are all aspects of God? Is the entire universe, us, the devil, hell & Auschwitz all “in God”? That seems unacceptable.
Origenes: is creation “in” God? Can it be the case that we are all in God, that is, that we are all aspects of God?
If you are a Christian, there is this:
Is the entire universe, us, the devil, hell & Auschwitz all “in God”? That seems unacceptable.
Why? Are you coming at it on the basis of an emotion? It certainly isn’t a logical contradiction.
The more fundamental question is: can God create something that is not actively “connected” to God? If not, then you are a monist. (That’s me.) If so, then you are implying that “reality” is no longer “one”, and that God somehow bifurcated making two independent realities, one of God and another detached reality that God is not longer “connected to.” But if not actively connected to God, how can God interact with the created disconnected reality? Any action between the two realities implies some kind of “shared space” of a more fundemental reality, making reality still, in fact, One.
Somehow, I don’t think this is the right trail to hop down.
Such a construct answers no questions, and is not a required entailment of a consistent philosophy of God. At the end of the day, there is only One Reality no matter how you slice it, and the creation cannot be independent from the ontology of the creator. I think of the the Root Reality, “God”, as a hyperpersonal Tao, wherein lies all properties and potenia. That pretty much goes as far as one can go with human reason without uttering jibberish and falling victim to the kintergarten theology of anthropomorphism and its offshoots, such as the trinity doctrine.
Your thoughts?
–Ram
Ram, Regarding the “God of the Hebrew Bible” maybe you should hear Jordan Peterson out on the idea that the Old Testament God isn’t merciful? If you aren’t aware, Peterson isn’t a believer. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRfPlVnFUFM
RAm @ 163… I follow what you are saying and don’t have much of a response to it. However, I do think that we are made in the image of God and therefore do reflect and espouse some of his abilities/characteristics. Good counter.
Zweston: Regarding the “God of the Hebrew Bible” maybe you should hear Jordan Peterson out on the idea that the Old Testament God isn’t merciful?
I’ve listened to his several of talks on the Hebrew God.
If you aren’t aware, Peterson isn’t a believer.
His beliefs seems to me have been evolving over time. Recently he has been labeling himself a mythicist. Biblical stories not literal but having “truths” that are useful to humans. From what I can tell he does lean toward the belief in some kind of higher power. His mythicism views overlap mine, but are not identical. I respect his views. I have a lot of respect for J.P. in general and believe he’s doing very positive work in the world and would enjoy talking with him over a pint.
–Ram
Zweston/170
Okay, but does “image” refer to the physical, psychological, moral or all of the above?
William J Murray @142,
Just to respond to your post . .
Yes, they were indeed assertions. They’re based on an understanding that God is not at all like a “flying tiger,” but created all that exists in our universe. As such, it seems that He could not have existed within the space-time of the as-yet-to-be created universe. From science, we can appreciate how incredibly complex, spectacular, and poorly understood this creation is. It’s miraculous that anything should come into existence out of non-existence, perhaps 13.7 billion years ago. Our own experience tells us that snow doesn’t shovel itself, a leaky sink doesn’t evolve into a better one, an iPhone doesn’t assemble itself, an automobile in your driveway doesn’t repair itself, and it’s ridiculous that the universe would create itself, producing functional complexity from random noise no matter how many billions of years have passed.
The Creator of all this would have a purpose in mind for this creation, but it’s certainly not obvious what that purpose is. While many human religions, philosophers, hucksters, and thinly disguised business ventures claim to know this purpose, the truth somehow has to be revealed beyond just logic, persuasion, and nature. And this truth should be accessible to all, regardless of their intelligence, wealth, social class, skin color, language, gender, education, and so on.
But to stand out from the crowd of pretenders, there needs to be something convincing for those willing to be convinced. The words that come to my mind include wisdom, miracles, fulfilled prophecies, radically changed lives, reliable writings, evidences, and so on.
Naturally all pretenders will want to fake these as well. And where do all the fakes come from and the incredible evil that we recognize as different from good?
That not all sources can be trusted is increasingly obvious from the news. How do you decide what you believe and what you can trust? Everything you see and hear can’t all be true, and there’s a deafening cacophony of messages in society with all kinds of claims clamoring incessantly for your time, your money, your attention, your votes, and your admiration.
In the presence of so many people completely consumed with intense desire for infinite wealth, absolute power, monomaniacal fame, unlimited sexual activity, unceasing pleasure at the expense of everyone else, and the unleashing of unquenchable hatreds, jealousies, fury, lies and deception, violence for its own sake, and so on, it becomes a serious challenge to find anything good while drowning in all the evil.
Again, the words that come to my mind include wisdom, miracles, fulfilled prophecies, radically changed lives, reliable writings, evidences, and so on. But I’d also add that the results in a person’s life is the ultimate reveal.
-Q
William J Murray @ 153,
Interestingly, potentials cannot exist outside of time and have no volition. And non-existence has exactly zero potential. Thus, when God created space-time (upon which potentials depend) and everything that exists within space-time, of necessity God did not create everything that could possibly exist . . . otherwise both creation and non-existence would cease.
But frankly, I don’t think this perspective if helpful. There are potentially an infinite number of William J Murrays and a potential that William J Murray doesn’t exist. We’re left with everything and nothing.
-Q
Someone may very well convince me that he is a god. But indeed how can anyone possibly know that he is the one god – the only one? The bible tells us that there is only one god., but what if the number offered would have been 7?
And even if we, for thomistic ontological reasons, are convinced that only one God can possibly be the First Cause, do we also have a reason to rule out the coming into existence of other powerful god-like beings?
Ram @156,
Yes, in Isaiah 14, the arrogance and fall of the king of Babylon is being compared to that of Lucifer (hê·lêl in Hebrew), which is a title rather than a name to be forgotten. But as you noted, the contempt is clearly being leveled against the king of Babylon, who despite his aspirations is still no more than a human.
Yes, we should always be sure to read scriptures in context both in the passage itself and in the culture.
-Q
Ram @160,
Yes, I am. And in addition to the Hebrew text, I also study the pre-Masoretic Greek Septuagint, have needed to reference the Dead Sea Scrolls on occasion, and on a couple of occasions, the Syriac Peshitta.
I’m not close to fluent in any of these languages, which slows me down significantly. For additional English-language translations, I reference the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the New International Version, and sometimes other translations to get a better idea of the scope of the various translators.
The Easy-to-Read Version is surprisingly better than one would imagine and Rabbi Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible is both charming and illuminating. For a large variety of translations in different languages, I’d recommend https://www.biblegateway.com/
Yes, I love it! And so Christians can potentially understand Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan (i.e. Mormon).
-Q
Ram @ 163, 164, and 168,
Nicely stated. I have a few quibbles, but I appreciate the time and thought you put into these posts.
-Q