Materialists Know What They Say is False. They Say it Anyway

_{Barry Arrington
January 21, 2022

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Otherwise, they would have to give up their materialism.

Recently I posted about a woman who was charged with attempted murder when she put a newborn baby in a garbage bag and tossed him in a dumpster to die. Here is an exchange I had with Seversky regarding that post:

Barry:

Is it objectively evil to put a baby in a garbage bag and throw him in a dumpster or is it just your subjective preference not to do so?

Seversky:

the overwhelming majority regard dumping newborns in dumpsters as being evil

Barry:

Suppose the overwhelming majority regarded dumping newborns in dumpsters as good. Would it then be good?

Seversky:

Presumably, it would be good in the minds of the majority who approved of it. It would not be a good thing from my perspective.

There you have it. Sev’s position is this: They would prefer tossing babies in dumpsters and I would not. There is no basis on which to determine which preference is superior. Therefore, the preferences are objectively equal.

As I have said before, no sane person actually lives their life as if materialism is true. But Sev’s religious commitments compel him to pretend he believes it is true. Which leads him to say that he holds an outrageous position that we can be certain he does not truly hold. Sad that.

Comments

Origenes, at this point, I simply ask:
1: Is it true or false that we are error prone? 2: If you say it is false, the matter is over, for cause. 3: If you admit yes, then is it or is it not important to enhance reliability by applying a filtering process towards adequate warrant? 4: If you say no, then it's over. 5: If you admit yes, then you know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and why the objective is credibly independent of our subjectivity, having been adequately warranted. 6: So, on any case, the substantial matter is over and your months of argument collapse.
KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PST}

"In the last days people will be..... lovers of themselves, lovers of pleasure instead of lovers of God......always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth" ...... Acts 17.... 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. Paul Addresses the Areopagus 22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said,“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” 32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. ----- As the three responses were... mockery, curiosity without committal, or joining and believing. ---- These dialogues continue to underline the point that apologetics don't make Christians. Arguments don't do that. The gospel is the power of God. Some reject it and some surrender to it. Jesus is the fragrance of life to some and fragrance of death to others. Some sheep follow the good shepherd and others choose not to. Some are wheat and some are tares. Some are sheep and some are goats. 1 Corinthians 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.-- 1 Peter 5:5 Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” 6 Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due timezweston_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PST}

Chuck Darwin @113
Surveys have shown that the idea of complete non-existence to many people is more horrific than a continued existence of torment. Kind of like the notion that if I didn’t have bad luck, I wouldn’t have any luck at all.
Precisely so. It is a point I have already brought up. The God haters keep harping about an "evil" God who refuses to annihilate sinners, allowing them to languish in the miseries of Hell. But for many, annihilation is not the ultimate act of mercy. As I tried to show earlier, once one gets locked into a spirit of militant defiance, that person can come to prefer Hell over annihilation so that they can continue to blaspheme God in their timeless existence. It wouldn't be so for me or for WJM (strangely we both agree on that particular nuance), but there would be many who would resent the prospect of being annihilated just to satisfy those of us who want the suffering to end at any cost. Why should God give WJM or me a break at the expense of those who don't want one?StephenB_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PST}

Ram @89,
Seems like you continue to miss the point: God could simply annihilate “lost” persons instead of monstrously torturing them forever.
Don’t you remember how I destroyed this "Newtonian" argument in a previous thread? Ram @91,
You assume the New Testament is reliable. I don’t.
Are you familiar at all with the basics of cybersecurity? Can you describe what’s called “the chain of trust”?
Jews generally don’t believe in such a monstrous eternal torture, and never have. It’s nowhere to be found in the Hebrew scriptures. (emphasis yours)
As Zweston previously mentioned . . .
“Many of those sleeping in the dust of the earth will awaken, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting shame and abhorrence." – Daniel 12:2 (Complete Jewish Bible)
Can you please explain to us what this could possibly mean in the Tanakh? Chuckdarwin @95,
BTW, I’m pretty sure that the guy sitting on the tracks would merely suffer an instantaneous, not eternal, death. And for all we know it may not even be that painful. But you’d probably have to be there to know for sure . . .
Speaking from experience riding a commuter train that sadly hit a suicidal homeless person and also several deer on the tracks at different times (I could hear the bones sickeningly banging on the underside of the carriage), the death they experienced was ETERNAL death--unless you believe in some form of resurrection. The pain they suffered was likely short and intense before losing consciousness. During the French revolution, there was at least one macabre experiment regarding how long a person was conscious after being guillotined . . . Do you think that the deer that were hit deserved the intense but short pain followed by ETERNAL death? -QQuerius_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PST}

For record:
Is it objectively evil to put a baby in a garbage bag and throw him in a dumpster or is it just your subjective preference not to do so?
What is meant by ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’? Definitions quoted by KF:
SUBJECTIVE: subjective adj 1. belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered [–> in short, in the contemplating subject, not necessarily the contemplated observed or abstract object such as the null set {} –> 0] 2. of, relating to, or emanating from a person’s emotions, prejudices, etc: subjective views. [–> this highlights the error-pronenes of our subjectivity, thus need for filtering to achieve adequate reliability]
I, as a subject, hold that it is evil to put a baby in a garbage bag and throw him in a dumpster. This judgment “belongs to, proceeds from and relates to my mind as a thinking subject.” And my judgement is certainly “related or emanating from my emotions” and perhaps also my “prejudices.”
OBJECTIVE: objective adj 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions: are there objective moral values?. [AmHD helps: 1. a. Existing independent of or external to the mind;] {–> independent of particularly should be seen as inherent in the object, observable or abstract and that on grounds that confer reliability} 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias [–> highlighting error proneness] 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.[ –> this sense especially relates to observable, concrete things like a tree, and again points to our error proneness, however for cause something like the null set and related Math is objective though abstract, there being no physical location for the null set]
I hold that it is evil to put a baby in a garbage bag and throw him in a dumpster. My judgment does not “exist independently of my perception or my individual conceptions”. My judgment does not “exist independent of or external to my mind.” My judgment is fueled by emotion rather than “undistorted” by it. “Personal bias” is unlikely in my estimation. My judgment is based on my “thoughts and feelings.” I expect my judgment to converge with all those who seek social harmony, because no one has a (subjective) preference to be helpless, thrown in a garbage bag and thrown in a dumpster. And all those who have a certain level of social awareness apply the golden rule.Origenes_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PST}

Querius @123
Trollbots are common on social media and I’m strongly tempted to write one myself that’s satirizes them.
Knock yourself out, but please, for us "trollbot's" sake, do it in English, not Hebrew.... BTW, I'm pretty sure that the guy sitting on the tracks would merely suffer an instantaneous, not eternal, death. And for all we know it may not even be that painful. But you'd probably have to be there to know for sure....chuckdarwin_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PST}

What part of hoax do you not get?
I take that as a NO! You have no explanation for it and if you researched it for a month, you still wouldn't. It is one of, if not the most studied object in the history of mankind. No one has an explanation for its origin. Instead you try to mock people when you have no answer. Interesting approach. Try telling us what the hoax is? What is the Shroud? Why is it a hoax? Who started the hoax? When?jerry_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PST}

Zweston @82, Great comments!
If someone believes you are on the tracks and the train is coming through, would the loving thing to be to sugar coat it and reason with you until it made sense to you?
It would be fun to write a book called something like, Conversation on the Railroad Tracks, that uses all the arguments repeatedly brought up by the dissenters here starting with "I don't believe that the designers of public transportation would be so evil as to condemn someone who simply sits on the tracks to a painful and ETERNAL DEATH through no fault of their own! Thus, I refuse to believe that a 'train' exists."
It seems to me the dissenters on this board aren’t really interested in truth at all. All that matters is if it is true.
That's regrettably my conclusion as well. In my observation, despite repeated explanations, they repeatedly raise the identical, unsupported and incorrect assertions. That's why I think it's possible that at least one of them is a trollbot. Trollbots are common on social media and I'm strongly tempted to write one myself that's satirizes them.
The words of Christ ring true and are founded by historical evidence, including a chain of possession that we can track historically.
This chain of possession also includes a parallel chain of hostile witnesses that mock believers from early on, unintentionally confirming the Biblical accounts of Yeshua Ha'Nazaret.
For the dissenters on the board, you have been given so much light, evidence, reasoning, and discussion. Yet, your hearts remain hardened. Please reconsider! Grace and Peace to you!
That's kind of you, but they're not interested. I try to answer their challenges with evidence from historical, scientific, and mathematical reasoning, but they reject or ignore those attempts and simply repeat the same, often refuted assertions. The conclusion is obvious. -QQuerius_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PST}

Jerry @119 What part of hoax do you not get? Given the fact that the Vatican has never vouched for the authenticity of the shroud, I'm not going to waste time addressing you and BA77's "shroud theories." Next thing you'll be asking me about slivers of the true cross, or the blood of Peter, or the Holy Grail, or some other such nonsense. You are like those little old ladies in Italy that make the sign of the cross every time the devil is mentioned...chuckdarwin_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PST}

Zweston, I don't know if you're aware of this, but on this site, for about a year, I made really good arguments for objective morality. Then I switched sides, so to speak, and argued against it. This is standard debate class stuff. I made statements at the time to the effect that I wasn't saying I believed it, I was just making an argument about it. KF and I went at it for months. I was actually trying to understand his argument, but because of his language and style and insistence on arguing the same way every time, pasting the same thing over and over, I realized it had gone as far as it could go. From my perspective, my argument about the conditions that are necessary for a duty to be said to exist was pretty conclusive. Most people, I think, would have just notched that as a "win" and moved on, not giving it another thought. But, on my own time, I wanted to see if I could make KF's argument for him. Why would I do this? It's because I enjoy examining the logic and evidence. I love making logical, evidential arguments. I'll argue with myself, and I have done so often. I LOVE it if someone can demonstrate they have the better argument. Upright Biped has one of the most beautiful, amazing arguments I've ever seen about the evidence for ID in living organisms. The first time I ever heard a "ground of being" argument was long ago, here, by KF. His logic was flawless. Whether I liked it or not didn't have anything to do with it; it's inescapably true. Nobody's beliefs can escape self-evident or necessary truths unless they are insane. I wondered if I could make a "necessary truth" argument for "objective morality" and, as SB put it, "Natural Law." I wondered if I could figure out a way to bring KF's "duties" into it. I worked for weeks and then figured it out. I recently asked KF if a short summary I provided him in a prior thread was at least directionally congruent with his argument, and he said I was on the right track. So, at least as a basic sketch, the details of which I'm sure both SB and KF would likely disagree with - but at least as a basic framing, SB was right about Natural Law and KF was right about "duties" (although I consider that word to be a terribly misleading term to use because of it's ontological requirements in any normal application). I agree - in a basic framing - that "objective morality" exists (and the term "morality" is another term fraught with baggage that can hinder understanding.) Let me ask you this: do you spend weeks trying to prove to yourself, on your own time, that someone else is right, and that you're wrong? Do you think SB or KF or Jerry or LCD does that? Do you think anyone here is spending one second of their offline time trying to figure out how MRT is correct? I don't think so. Don't talk to me about my "not being reasonable." I'm the most reasonable and honest person on this board, because I'm willing to admit when someone else is right, when they have the better argument, and I'm willing to say true things about myself that open me up to ridicule and loss of credibility.William J Murray_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PST}

Origenes: For record:
Kindly, ponder the very carefully worded definitions from Collins English Dictionary [CED], where high quality dictionaries record and report correct usage:
SUBJECTIVE: subjective adj 1. belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered [--> in short, in the contemplating subject, not necessarily the contemplated observed or abstract object such as the null set {} --> 0] 2. of, relating to, or emanating from a person’s emotions, prejudices, etc: subjective views. [--> this highlights the error-pronenes of our subjectivity, thus need for filtering to achieve adequate reliability] OBJECTIVE: objective adj 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions: are there objective moral values?. [AmHD helps: 1. a. Existing independent of or external to the mind;] {--> independent of particularly should be seen as inherent in the object, observable or abstract and that on grounds that confer reliability} 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias [--> highlighting error proneness] 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.[ --> this sense especially relates to observable, concrete things like a tree, and again points to our error proneness, however for cause something like the null set and related Math is objective though abstract, there being no physical location for the null set]
Dictionaries of course summarise from usage by known good speakers and writers, forming a body of recorded knowledge on language. So, we may freely conclude that:
objectivity does not mean empirical, tangible external/physical object or the like, it can include items contemplated by the mind such as mathematical entities etc and which due to adequate warrant are reasonably INDEPENDENT of our individual or collective error-prone cognition, opinions, delusions, biases and distortions etc.
Objectivity, is established as a key concept that addresses our error proneness by provision of adequate warrant that gives good reason to be confident that the item or state of affairs etc contemplated is real not a likely point of delusion. Yes, degree of warrant is a due consideration and in many cases common to science etc is defeasible but credible. In certain key cases, e.g. actual self evidence, it is utterly certain.
KFkairosfocus_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PST}

It’s a hoax…
Why say that? You know that is nonsense. It is one of the most studied objects in the history of mankind. Essentially, you disqualified yourself as a commenter on anything by this remark. I take you comment as a No. You avoided this before. So you have had a couple months to think about it. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-time-for-american-thanksgiving-stephen-meyer-on-the-frailty-of-scientific-atheism/#comment-741231jerry_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PST}

PS, again (for record), algebra:
Let a proposition be represented by x M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [--> truth claim] O = x is objective and generally knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [--> notice, generally knowable per adequate warrant, as opposed to widely acknowledged] It is claimed, cultural relativism thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1
[ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: "[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc -- c 430 BC on, hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made." This IMPLIES the Cultural Relativism Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. Of course, subjectivism then reduces the scale of "community" to one individual. He continues, "These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . " [--> door opened to nihilistic factionalism]]
However, the subject of S is M, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O, and is about M where it forbids O-status to any claim of type-M so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [--> reductio ad absurdum] ++++++++++ ~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*M = 1 [condensing not of not] where, M [moral truth claim] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] That is, there UNDENIABLY are objective moral truths; and a first, self-evident one is that ~[O*M] is false. The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important.
kairosfocus_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PST}

Zweston:
WJM, It is fascinating to me to see how you can concede the truth of scripture in one breath and then deny its authority the next for your own subjective desires.
I also concede facts discovered by scientists, and deny their authority to dictate to me what those facts mean. Just because scientists can do amazing things, and tell me things that I find are facts in my experience, does not mean I should trust them when they try to tell me what those facts mean.
definition of unreasonable…not being able to be reasoned with: ..... — but if it’s true…shouldn’t it change your beliefs?
How am I being unreasonable? I'm perfectly willing to admit it when someone makes their case. That's reasonable. I've flatly stated that no facts, evidence or logic will necessarily (for clarification) change my personal beliefs - which was, IMO, the ethical and right thing to do. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do so nobody gets the idea my agreement that they have made their case constitutes a change in my personal beliefs. Because of this, my personal beliefs don't get in the way of my examining the evidence or logic other people present. How reasonable is that? You ask me, shouldn't I change my personal beliefs accordingly? What I "should" do depends on my goal. My goal is to enjoy my life as much as possible. If adopting belief X is going to lessen my enjoyment of life, then in terms of my goal the answer is "no."William J Murray_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PST}

Jerry @114 It's a hoax...chuckdarwin_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PST}

Zweston said:
You have made yourself to be God.
Not from my perspective.
You want to believe what you want to believe.
I believe what i believe because it has - apparently - delivered to me a wonderful, amazing life-experience. If I thought some other belief would be better at that, I'd certainly at least try it out. I have gone through several beliefs and testing them out to see what they seem to produce in my life.
When someone believes something they don’t necessarily want to be true or cannot harmonize, I’d say that’s good evidence they are being reasonable… you on the other hand won’t believe any metaphysical truths because you don’t want to.
That's assuming that the metaphysics I do believe in - MRT - are not true. I don't personally believe in many proposed metaphysical perspectives because I don't see how they're going to be better at delivering enjoyment in my life. That's entirely separate from whether or not any proposed metaphysic, such as MRT or non-MRT, can be evidenced and successfully argued. I'm just lucky in that MRT can be evidenced and successfully argued - but, it wouldn't make any difference to me if it couldn't, other than that I wouldn't be making arguments and providing evidence for it here or elsewhere.
Your epistemology is based on whether you like something or not.
I an't quite make sense out of this. Self-evident and necessary truths are true whether I like them or not.
This is a science blog (which gets turned into a theology blog often)… you can’t do science with your epistemology.
I don't think I've actually described my epistemology here. I think you're confusing statements about what I believe for assertions of knowledge. I don't know or claim that anything I personally believe is knowledge. Heck, I don't even know if my beliefs actually caused what I experienced afterward. It could all be coincidental. I don't claim what I believe is true or represents knowledge other than: I changed my beliefs to X, and kept changing them directionally towards X+, and my enjoyment of my life happened to increase as well. Everything I believe could be false. Who knows?
Then you come on here to convert people to your thinking, or just de-convert others from a belief system you don’t like.
This is obviously projection. I have absolutely no belief or "hope" that I'm going to change anyone's mind about anything. I've already been over this in detail with SB.
All that matters is if it is true or not.
Well, to you.
You reject truth.
I don't reject self-evident or necessary truths. I don't reject any debatable truths; I just don't care about them.
Truth is what you experience…
I didn't say that. I said I strive to make truthful statements about my experience. Those are two distinctly different concepts.
I guess maybe you aren’t a relativist because you do conclusively land on the God of the Bible being “wrong.”
Nope. I said "eternal torment" is wrong in terms of good and evil. If that indicts the God of the Bible, that's someone else's issue. It apparently does not indict the universalist's "God of the Bible," from what you said.William J Murray_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PST}

No response to
Any thoughts on the Shroud of Turin?
I take that as a no. Let’s not have an onslaught from Christians about this. I’m interested in skeptics’ replies. BA77 has several posts on this. That should suffice. I’m sure they’re busy scouring the internet to find a reply or they’ll just ignore it. Hint: it’s an anatomically correct image of a crucified man. Who? When? Where? But more importantly how was the image created?jerry_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PST}

StephenB @94 The notion of annihilationism (also called conditional salvation) is actually gaining traction among Christian scholars that study soteriology. Annihilationism and universalism are alternative ways of dealing with eternal physical and spiritual torment which is a major impediment to selling Christianity in the marketplace of religion. You state:
The question about why [punishment] must be forever has already been answered. As I wrote above, punishment must be eternal because the decision to reject God is a desire to be separated from him for as long as He lives, which is forever.
Some biblical scholars argue that there is just as much, if not more, scriptural support for annihilationism and universalism as for eternal torment. Annihilationism addresses the "eternity" issue insofar as by ceasing to exist in any fashion, one is permanently denied association with God. Surveys have shown that the idea of complete non-existence to many people is more horrific than a continued existence of torment. Kind of like the notion that if I didn't have bad luck, I wouldn't have any luck at all.chuckdarwin_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PST}

WJM, It is fascinating to me to see how you can concede the truth of scripture in one breath and then deny its authority the next for your own subjective desires. definition of unreasonable...not being able to be reasoned with: "If you could make your case that the evidence is actually evidence that Jesus is God and Christianity is likely true, what do I care? I’m perfectly willing to admit it because it changes nothing for me wrt my personal beliefs."--- but if it's true...shouldn't it change your beliefs? My paraphrase: "I believe what I believe because that's what I like and enjoy. Truth really doesn't matter, even when it smacks me in the face because I believe something else. "zweston_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST}

Chucky D, do you have any evidence of that? Do you also know that Bart Erhman refuted himself regarding the "development" of Jesus becoming God later in the gospels... Jesus makes a claim to deity in Mark. Bart is misleading and dishonest. 3 minutes of bart refuting himself..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyIfQpOHy80 Also, interestingly, when Jesus calls himself the son of man, Read what it says about the son of man in Daniel 7: 13-14... In 1 corinthians 15, Paul cites an ancient Christian creed dating back to months to maybe a year or two after the resurrection talking about Jesus resurrecting. It wasn't developed. What is your explanation for the disciples dying for something they would have KNOWN was a lie? Even historical scholars like Ehrman know that the Disciples saw something they believed was the resurrected Jesus.... but Ehrman writes it off because miracles can't happen in his mind, not because of lack of evidence. (also, not sure what kind of evidence someone would want from an ascended body 2000 years ago beyond what we have?) Also, few doubt that Jesus was entombed in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb because of all of the detail involved...it could have been easily refuted at the time (and also fulfilled the prophecy of being buried by a rich man), which comes in contrast to the mass burial idea).zweston_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PST}

That was standard Roman practice.
Any thoughts on the Shroud of Turin?jerry_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PST}

Zweston @79
What happened to Jesus’ body?
Biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman, (and others) discusses this issue in his book How Jesus Became God. He suggests that Jesus' body likely would have been anonymously dumped in a mass grave along with the other executed criminals. That was standard Roman practice.chuckdarwin_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PST}

Zweston said:
You aren’t applying “basic logic.” You are putting up walls for yourself that are ridiculous.
As I pointed out in #105, I have no need for any such walls. I'm perfectly capable of admitting when others here have the better argument, or have proved their case. What do I care? It makes no difference to me at all. That's why I'm willing to agree with BA77 about his evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and why I'm willing to accept the miracles described in the Bible. I have no dog in the fight. If you could make your case that the evidence is actually evidence that Jesus is God and Christianity is likely true, what do I care? I'm perfectly willing to admit it because it changes nothing for me wrt my personal beliefs.William J Murray_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PST}

I ditched “finding the truth” in the prior sense, and sought only truthful statements, in my own experience, about “enjoying my life.” I then proceeded to build a philosophy and metaphysics of personal enjoyment. You have made yourself to be God. Congrats. And no, I don't think I'm going to convince you otherwise. You want to believe what you want to believe. When someone believes something they don't necessarily want to be true or cannot harmonize, I'd say that's good evidence they are being reasonable... you on the other hand won't believe any metaphysical truths because you don't want to. Your epistemology is based on whether you like something or not. This is a science blog (which gets turned into a theology blog often)... you can't do science with your epistemology. Then you come on here to convert people to your thinking, or just de-convert others from a belief system you don't like. All that matters is if it is true or not. You reject truth. Truth is what you experience... If I said I'm an elephant, would I be wrong? I guess maybe you aren't a relativist because you do conclusively land on the God of the Bible being "wrong."zweston_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PST}

A critique of God is that you weren't there to see him create you, a finite being? Good grief. You recognize God exists because of creation. Are you aware of anyone else who did the things Jesus did (or is doing now)...visions and dreams to multitudes of muslims of a man in a white robe? So prevalent that newspapers have ads out so muslims can reach out to learn about the dreams? So, you are telling me if you see a man raise someone from the dead, heal lepers and cripples, cast out demons by his voice, read your mind, reference prophecy from a thousand years ago where it describes the exact method of his death before it was even invented, then it happen to him without him being able to do all the details himself, calling his own resurrection three days later...and he does it...and you still can't "take the leap" that Jesus is God. Does no one else see how ridiculous this is? You aren't applying "basic logic." You are putting up walls for yourself that are ridiculous. By your claims no one could be found guilty of any crime unless the entire jury was there to see it done, because otherwise they couldn't be sure. Your "logic" defies any sort of reason or common sense. Which, I should have known. You won't believe Christianity to be true because you don't want it to be true. I get it. Then you come up with some ad-hoc reality theory and dismiss any parameters validating the existence of the God of the Bible so you can insulate yourself from the truth. You have full confidence in your ridiculous theory of reality that can't even be proven by any method... you aren't dealing in objectivity...you slant your epistemology to favor your own thinking. You are literally unreasonable. I have said it before and the fact remains. God wanted us to know who he is...so he sent his son to affirm it. You yourself don't even know what else he would have to do to prove it. You are like those that followed Jesus around after doing a bunch of signs... "can you do for us a sign to show us who you are".... after feeding 5000 men with a few fishes and loaves. "No sign will be given to this wicked generation but the sign of Jonah"-raising after three days. -- Not totally related, but... This will likely not be helpful to you, but maybe someone else reading this chain of insanity might find value in it. 4 minutes: John MacArthur on what about those who haven't heard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJC-mgcr1j8zweston_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PST}

Note how what you said, Zweston, at 103, validates my perspective on what is going on here:
That means you ultimately believe Jesus to be a liar by your denial, which is not real tenable considering all of the above validations of who he is, but that’s up to you I guess.
Nope. I don't "ultimately believe Jesus to be a liar" because I don't know what he believed, or what he actually meant when he said what he said. If I could do the things Jesus did, I might believe I'm God. I wouldn't be lying if I said that, but I might be in error. Also, Jesus might have meant many different things when he said what he said. I don't assume I know exactly what he meant by the things he said.
The only thing I’m projecting onto you is what the Bible says about those who don’t believe.
Thank you for being breathtakingly honest in admitting this. I respect the heck out of you for doing so. Which leads us to:
This I will guess: you have set up a number of ways that you can write off God out of hand so you don’t live in constant guilt and conviction:
I don't "write off God" because the version of God you espouse is just a hypothetical construct to me. I certainly haven't "written off" God as ground-of-being. I've "written off" many other versions of God. The interesting aspect of this question is: did I write off all of those hypothetical versions of God in order to feel good about myself and my life? No. I wrote them off, originally, because none of them made sense to me. They all appeared to be totally arbitrary, do arbitrary things, set up arbitrary rules, etc. I accepted that I couldn't make sense out of any of that and actually became agnostic for a while. I started examining my own subconscious and deconstructing what I have come to call my subconscious programming to see if I could come to some kind of clarity not organized by deep social programming. That's when I realized that the only reason I was "seeking truth" about such things was because, for some reason, I deeply, subconsciously believed that "finding the truth" would somehow make my life more enjoyable. I believed it was the key to happiness, so to speak. That's when I realized that "finding the truth" was just a middle-man goal; what I really wanted was to be happy, to enjoy my life. I ditched "finding the truth" in the prior sense, and sought only truthful statements, in my own experience, about "enjoying my life." I then proceeded to build a philosophy and metaphysics of personal enjoyment. Honestly, I wish I could adequately share with you all that I have experienced since I made that decision. The only word to describe it is miraculous. I could never have imagined feeling this kind of joy, love, lightness, delight, the sense of being whole and complete, enthusiastic an hopeful. It has utterly transformed me and my life; it did the same for my wife. OMG the life we lived, and are still living now (though in a different way since she died,) was and is wonderful beyond my ability to adequately describe. I have experienced amazing things I had no idea were even things. It all very often brings tears of joy and happiness and a profound sensation of love that, at times, I think is going to kill me. I don't know how you "must" envision me and my life, or what's going on in my mind and heart because of what the Bible tells you. IMO, anyone who experiences 1/10th of what I experience could never be pried away from it no matter the threat, the evidence, or the logic. It's far too wonderful, too fulfilling, too good, with too much love and joy to ever give up. It's like I'm living in the most astounding heaven while still living on Earth. Do you really think anyone, for any reason, is going to be able to talk me out of this? This is why I've explicitly told people here that my personal beliefs are immune to being changed by logic or evidence, and why it is that I'm fully capable of admitting it when someone offers a better logical and/or evidential argument.William J Murray_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PST}

Zweston said:
Anyone who calls resurrecting and does it, I’m going to trust him.
This is the key quote. Let's separate the Bible into two categories; (1)written, witnessed accounts, and (2) claims by a being about who and what he is, what he did, and what happened long ago that there are no witness accounts of (like creating the universe) other than his own. Let's assume all written witness testimonies describe real events. What we have is a being claiming (1) that he is God, and (2) making claims about what he has done and what happened in the distant past without any corroborating, witnessed accounts and, most salient to the point here, (3) telling us what evidence proves he is God. Does being able to perform what appear to be supernatural feats prove a being is "God?" How so? Who says being able to do such things is even remotely related to establishing one's Godhood? The being claiming to be God? That's entirely circular reasoning. So you have a being saying "God can do X, Y, and Z. I can do X, Y, and Z. Therefore, you can know I am, in fact, God." Outside of anything this being says, or has "inspired" people to say about him and his qualities, what he can do, what his qualifications are, and what "proves" him as what he claims to be, how are we to recognize a being as "God?" The comment made by Zweston provides the key: "Anyone who calls resurrecting and does it, I’m going to trust him." The question is: why? How does "calling his own resurrection and the doing it" make that person worthy of your trust, especially trusting his claim that he is God? Because they are powerful and can do seemingly supernatural things, like turning water into wine and predicting the future? How would I know those are even things that would be evidence of God? Because the being claiming to be God says so? KF or SB might argue that this is some form of hyperskepticism, but it is not. I'm just applying basic logic. Outside of what this being claims, how do you form a sound premise about what God is and what **only** the REAL God can do?William J Murray_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PST}

WJM.... So, a man comes and can read minds, tells the future (destruction of the temple, Peter's rejection of him) heals the sick, casts out demons, fulfills I believe over a hundred prophecies (many super specific) that speak of the role of this coming figure that they would atone for the sins of the world and set up an eternal kingdom, put an end to unrighteousness, redeem the world.... and they claim that they and the father are one. They claim to be able to forgive sins as everyone knew that God alone could do. They claim to be the only way to the father in heaven. Then, they die as they tell everyone they would...and they resurrect 3 days later like they said they would. And somehow you can't make ends meet in your mind? Jesus=God? That means you ultimately believe Jesus to be a liar by your denial, which is not real tenable considering all of the above validations of who he is, but that's up to you I guess. It isn't that I can't see & understand your perspective. You reject Christ because of Hell. You make up your own theory to make life "work" for you. You hold pain and regret from losing your wife (or was that JVL?). The only thing I'm projecting onto you is what the Bible says about those who don't believe. I can't read your mind, but God can. There is nothing new under the sun. You will be without excuse by denying that Jesus is God. It's been made clear to you. It just doesn't fit your contrived epistemological demands (that you cannot even qualify). This I will guess: you have set up a number of ways that you can write off God out of hand so you don't live in constant guilt and conviction: Hell doesn't make sense, there is no way of knowing who God would be if he showed up in the flesh, You don't care if you are wrong because to be wrong would be to be separated from your spouse, etc. I also will revisit the reality that even if Christianity were true, you wouldn't be a Christian in the Biblical sense...just someone who would ask for fire insurance begrudgingly. 1 John 5: 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.zweston_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PST}

Is it objectively evil to put a baby in a garbage bag and throw him in a dumpster or is it just your subjective preference not to do so?
False dichotomy. What is meant by ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’? As I understand it ‘subjective’ is used as a reference to a whimsical impulse. What is meant by ‘objective’ is less clear. Does it mean “really”, as in “is it really evil to put a baby in a garbage bag”? Or does ‘objective’ mean that it comes from a realm independent from us mere subjects/sinners; that is, it is a command from God? I don’t share the view that the subject is fundamentally whimsical. So, to answer the question, I hold that that it is subjectively evil to put a baby in a garbage bag and throw him in a dumpster. We subjectively ‘prefer’ not being killed & tortured, and this cannot be said to be a whimsical preference. And given a certain level of social awareness, we apply the golden rule.Origenes_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PST}

SB said:
I have even known atheists who, while they were alive, laughed at the prospect of eternal suffering and told God, in effect, to “bring it on.”
People say a lot of things until the stuff hits the fan. 99 times out of 100, they start singing a different tune then. A lot of people are full of bravado, and then you stick their feet in the fire, and they're screaming and crying and begging for relief, and they will do or say anything to get away from the pain.William J Murray_{January 24, 2022
January
01
Jan
24
24
2022
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 14 Next