|
God (pg. 39)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
Not according to the Bible. I like to quote:
"Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis,[a] Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him. Matthew" 4:25
"Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak Luke" 12:1
"The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,
"Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the King of Israel!" John 12:11
- And much more. Should You Believe the Bible then Jesus was a very famous person in the entire Middle East, and it is downright absurd that no historian should have taken notice of it during his lifetime.
Should we not believe the Bible, and assume that he was unknown, then it's no longer the same Jesus we're talking about - it's just a guy named Yeshu who babbled around at the time, and it is likely there was a Yeshu.
So sorry, but it is simply wrong. |
Indeed, the gospels do speak of great crowds; however, crowd is a relative term and like I said the Jesus movement was a working class and outsider movement. During his life time he would have been regarded in much the same way as the other wondering prophets and teachers, which if you wish to rely on scripture are also referenced in the bible.
| quote: | And why is it a legend? Because people perceive it as being based on reality. That is what "legend" means. Maybe he was not a legend, but just a story.
- You can use that we call him a legend, as proof that he is a legend. It is circular logic. |
What? It's not circular logic. Real events give rise to oral tradition, oral tradition becomes expanded/embellished, becomes legend. Because the legend exists it is reasonable to conclude that it was inspired at least in part by real events.
| quote: |
Exactly as I said: it is quite likely. Just like it is quite likely that in Wellton Town lives a family with two children named Johnson.
The likelihood alone is not a reason to believe it. |
Of course it is... if something is probable then it is reasonable to believe it. I'm not making the jump that one should believe that all the events of the gospel are true; just that there probably was a historical Jesus upon which the Christian traditions are based. Very few reasonable people would dispute this position because it is probable. |
|
|
| tubularbills |
| There's so much hate in this thread. :( |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| God is such a hate monger. What a dick. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
And why is it a legend? Because people perceive it as being based on reality. That is what "legend" means. Maybe he was not a legend, but just a story.
- You can use that we call him a legend, as proof that he is a legend. It is circular logic. |
Actually, that's not what legend means. Honestly, I don't know why people here continue to argue with someone more concerned with the prevalence of his own tactical conversational style than the substance of his arguments. When you engage in semantic hair-splitting to arrive at a conclusion which no other evidence is provided - THAT is what circular logic means. |
|
|
| Znack |
The first thing you write, i dont understand. Yes, people who believe in supernatural things, believe things without evidence. It goes without saying. Do you think this is a good thing? I do not understand.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
In what you suppose I am trying to do, you are in some way acknowledging yourself that theoretical physicists are an authority. |
Not really. Appeal to authority is simply the name of a false argument-form in which one attemts to portray a person or work as authoritarian, and therefore as an argument in itself.
| quote: | | But then you turned around and appealed your argument to what you believe to be the greatest minds in recent times - obviously irrefutable authorities in the matter. Nice. |
No, I did not. I have never claimed that simply the fact that intelligent people believe (or dont believe) something, is an argument for its state. I mentioned Einstein and Hawking because they clearly show that intelligent people or physicists not necessarily have to be right, because it is impossible that both believers and nonbelievers of them are right.
- I thought frankly that was pretty obvious. How can you get the absurd idea that I presented them as arguments?
| quote: | | Anyway, it is my understanding that Einstein did indeed believe it was possible there was a God - albeit not the "Christian" god of authority or punishment, |
Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods. |
That's some fine mental gymnastics for you, sparky. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
The first thing you write, i dont understand. Yes, people who believe in supernatural things, believe things without evidence. It goes without saying. Do you think this is a good thing? I do not understand. |
Perhaps you should explore why it might be a bad thing. I refuse to accept any argument that refers to the 'progression of our species' because that is a disgustingly arrogant notion typically put forward by people who suppose the autocracy of mankind in their sole - yet mistaken - power. See: Nou.
| quote: | | Not really. Appeal to authority is simply the name of a false argument-form in which one attemts to portray a person or work as authoritarian, and therefore as an argument in itself. |
I am well aware of its red-herring status...
| quote: | | No, I did not. I have never claimed that simply the fact that intelligent people believe (or dont believe) something, is an argument for its state. I mentioned Einstein and Hawking because they clearly show that intelligent people or physicists not necessarily have to be right, because it is impossible that both believers and nonbelievers of them are right. |
Such a pre-occupation with being right. It seems a rather convenient portion of recorded science is only concerned with 'being right' when it suits its agenda; is not a great deal of the entire scientific method being completely wrong, in lieu of failed experimentation and subsequent test results? Is it only "science" when it's correct, or more specifically, conducive to observable documentation one bestows a great deal of faith in the veracity of, given supposed peer-review?
| quote: | | I thought frankly that was pretty obvious. How can you get the absurd idea that I presented them as arguments? |
Likewise. I merely brought up the notion not because theoretical physicists are supposedly educated professionals in the very forefront of our embryonic paradigm, but because the datum they are inclined to formulate with is wrought with the chaotic behaviour of subatomics and celestial contradictions even the educated man would have no idea how to correlate. The very nature of their occupations practically demands a philosophy of sorts that must accommodate for a unifying force to give reason to the completely scientific observations that give rise to their theorems.
I am not saying it required to be spiritual before one enters theoretical physics - I am saying that as one shapes their understandings of the cosmos and its interplay upon mankind, it is practically unavoidable to surmise that there is an order to things. Personally, I do not think you can call this "God" is any tribal conscience, but might there be a being or a force that dictates this universal texture? Suddenly, it doesn't seem so outlandish.
| quote: | | Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods. |
No, it is not exactly the same. It is not the same at all. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
That's some fine mental gymnastics for you, sparky. |
I love the word "meaningful" - as though its importance is obfuscated by... well, personal meaning, of course! Isn't that the same for everyone? . |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Perhaps you should explore why it might be a bad thing. I refuse to accept any argument that refers to the 'progression of our species' because that is a disgustingly arrogant notion typically put forward by people who suppose the autocracy of mankind in their sole - yet mistaken - power. See: Nou.
I am well aware of its red-herring status...
Such a pre-occupation with being right. It seems a rather convenient portion of recorded science is only concerned with 'being right' when it suits its agenda; is not a great deal of the entire scientific method being completely wrong, in lieu of failed experimentation and subsequent test results? Is it only "science" when it's correct, or more specifically, conducive to observable documentation one bestows a great deal of faith in the veracity of, given supposed peer-review?
Likewise. I merely brought up the notion not because theoretical physicists are supposedly educated professionals in the very forefront of our embryonic paradigm, but because the datum they are inclined to formulate with is wrought with the chaotic behaviour of subatomics and celestial contradictions even the educated man would have no idea how to correlate. The very nature of their occupations practically demands a philosophy of sorts that must accommodate for a unifying force to give reason to the completely scientific observations that give rise to their theorems.
I am not saying it required to be spiritual before one enters theoretical physics - I am saying that as one shapes their understandings of the cosmos and its interplay upon mankind, it is practically unavoidable to surmise that there is an order to things. Personally, I do not think you can call this "God" is any tribal conscience, but might there be a being or a force that dictates this universal texture? Suddenly, it doesn't seem so outlandish.
No, it is not exactly the same. It is not the same at all. |
I love it when turn on your thinking cap, my dictionary hasn't seen this much action since the last spelling test I cheated on. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods. |
Yep, completely the same thing. 100%. For sure.
:stongue: |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I love the word "meaningful" - as though its importance is obfuscated by... well, personal meaning, of course! Isn't that the same for everyone? . |
:stongue: :stongue:
It's funny how someone trying to disprove the existence of God infers their own inability to prove the existence of logic. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
:stongue: :stongue:
It's funny how someone trying to disprove the existence of God infers their own inability to prove the existence of logic. |
I've never understood why anyone ever tries to prove or disprove the existence of God these days. I figured after Descartes' embarrassing attempt (I feel bad for the guy, he tried so hard) people would have given it up. I had a logic professor try year and it was just bad. Needless to say I'm thinking about retaking the class (from someone else) as I didn't ing learn much. |
|
|
|
|
