Question of the Day

[Byblos]

Admittedly, Jesus has some very good lessons to live by. But just because someone has some worthwhile philosophical ideas doesn't make him more than a man. Just because a book written hundreds of year after attributes some "miracles" (including his resurrection) to him doesn't prove his divinity.

If his resurrection is true it most certainly proves his divinity since he claimed to be the son of God and prophesied his own resurrection. With that said, looking at the evidence for the resurrection one would have to suspend reason for them not to consider the resurrection plausible. Intellectual honesty demands at a minimum admitting the possibility of the resurrection being true, however agnostic one decides to remain (and make no mistake about it, it is a conscious decision to ignore the evidence to remain so).

IF he was resurrected, I'd say that pretty much proves his divinity (or great favor with someone who is divine). BUT conclusive evidence that he was truly dead (not in a coma or other death-like state) and then arose from the dead after three days (not merely disappeared from his tomb) will be very hard to produce. AFAIK most of the "evidence" is heresay written many years after the events supposedly took place by people with an agenda. What do you consider the most compelling evidence?

Like I said, you would have to ignore some pretty compelling evidence to hold such a position. To each his own.

Post edit: At first I didn't see the point to post a link but changed my mind for other posters so here it is: Evidence For The Resurrection.

From the link:

After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.
F. F. Bruce
Manchester University

Just a few things that make you go hmmm.

[PaulSacramento]

There are many books on the ressurection, Blomberg and Habermas have a few excellent ones.

[neo-x]

Your English is better than many whose only language is English. I assumed you had edited your post and had left some "crumbs" of the unedited version (I certainly have done so on occasion). I was just alerting you that there seemed to be something wrong with that paragraph.

I was actually in a rush and just typed very quickly, didn't get time to edit it around.

My point was that if my morality comes from the bible and a non-religious person's morality comes from philosophy or conscious thought process, then at best it only proves that the chances of turning out moral or immoral in religion or non-religion (atheism or secularism, socialism or communism) is 50/50.
I think a lot of a person's morality comes from their upbringing - parents, teachers, clergy, peers, etc.

Now here is a problem and the reason is, morality may be taught by your parents, clergy, peers etc. but it is not enforced. Ethics are enforced on the other hand and there are minute differences between the two. Ethics or value theory defines "How one evaluates right and wrong (which is morality) with respect to its society" and ethics are common as long as they adhere to the golden principle (this is not universal by the way). Morality on the other hand is different, morals are the principles or the ways in which we are able to distinguish right from wrong.

As I said above even if morality is taught by peers clergy etc. it holds no ground on weighing the argument since we can not get any indicator to measure how much of this statement is true and how much consideration a person actually takes of all advices and morals taught by your parent etc before doing something. You will find that it is impossible to calculate, at least accurately. In my case it didn't work at all.

I understand your point about how many things could have prevented life as we know it by being slightly different. But given that the known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the probability of at least one star having a planet with the correct parameters doesn't seem quite so daunting.

I see your point - that out of billions you think it is an accident, a random occurrence, a mathematical probability, that it just so happens that we got it right. Well I keep it simple, I just think God is behind all of this.

When I was young, I was quite religious, even seriously thinking of entering the clergy. During that time, I considered every good thing that happened to me to be a blessing, for which I thanked god. But no matter how hard I tried to resist, doubts kept creeping in. The more research, thinking, and yes praying I did in an attempt to resolve my doubts, the more things I found that just didn't make sense. Eventually, I gave in and looked at things from a non-theist perspective. Looking at things non-theistically, I had fewer doubts and found what I considered much better answers. That was some 40 years ago, and while I keep an open mind concerning the existence of god (I really do, believe it or not), I have not seen anything to indicate god's existence. Several things seemed promising, but they all fell apart as I looked into them.

Well I believe you and that you have a open mind concerning the existence of God, I do. I would like to ask you respectfully, a few questions on your statement regarding "fewer doubts, much better answers, and things that didn't make sense", if you do not mind.

First question, how matter first originated? And I am hoping for a much better answer than than Biblical creation. To make it more clearer I am not asking you to prove your theory by proving that biblical creation is false, leave it out. for the arguments sake, lets say it is false Just tell me exclusively from your pov, intellectually or scientifically, anyway you would like, how matter first originated?

[MarcusOfLycia]

I understand your point about how many things could have prevented life as we know it by being slightly different. But given that the known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the probability of at least one star having a planet with the correct parameters doesn't seem quite so daunting.

The real question is: What are the odds that matter and energy spontaneously came into existence? And then, what are the odds that process occurred enough times to generate the 'billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars'?

[waynepii]

I understand your point about how many things could have prevented life as we know it by being slightly different. But given that the known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the probability of at least one star having a planet with the correct parameters doesn't seem quite so daunting.

The real question is: What are the odds that matter and energy spontaneously came into existence? And then, what are the odds that process occurred enough times to generate the 'billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars'?

What are the odds that a magical being powerful enough to create everything from nothing spontaneously came into existence (or always existed)?

[MarcusOfLycia]

I understand your point about how many things could have prevented life as we know it by being slightly different. But given that the known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the probability of at least one star having a planet with the correct parameters doesn't seem quite so daunting.

The real question is: What are the odds that matter and energy spontaneously came into existence? And then, what are the odds that process occurred enough times to generate the 'billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars'?

What are the odds that a magical being powerful enough to create everything from nothing spontaneously came into existence (or always existed)?

By 'magical' do you mean a Being that is not bound by the laws that we have found to govern our universe? As in someone higher than our universe?

Well, I wouldn't refer to His existence in terms of odds. I would call Him necessary for the existence of the universe (which, by observable law, cannot spontaneously do anything). The real debate then would be over his Name.

[Byblos]

I understand your point about how many things could have prevented life as we know it by being slightly different. But given that the known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the probability of at least one star having a planet with the correct parameters doesn't seem quite so daunting.

The real question is: What are the odds that matter and energy spontaneously came into existence? And then, what are the odds that process occurred enough times to generate the 'billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars'?

What are the odds that a magical being powerful enough to create everything from nothing spontaneously came into existence (or always existed)?

Actually very good odds. It's called the law of causality that runs counter (intuitive or otherwise) to infinite regress.

[waynepii]

I understand your point about how many things could have prevented life as we know it by being slightly different. But given that the known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the probability of at least one star having a planet with the correct parameters doesn't seem quite so daunting.

The real question is: What are the odds that matter and energy spontaneously came into existence? And then, what are the odds that process occurred enough times to generate the 'billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars'?

What are the odds that a magical being powerful enough to create everything from nothing spontaneously came into existence (or always existed)?

Actually very good odds. It's called the law of causality that runs counter (intuitive or otherwise) to infinite regress.

The "Law of Causality" exempts god from having to have a cause because god is neither finite nor contingent. It explains neither why god is infinite and necessary nor why the universe is finite. The Law of Causality is not a scientific law, it is a theological "law" that (IMO) was dreamed up to attempt to counter the "who created god?" response to the claim that god created the universe.

BTW I read the "Evidence For The Resurrection" article you linked in from an earlier post. The article claims the accuracy of the bible is "proven" since some of the events described in the bible have been verified archeologically. This is as valid as claiming the Iliad & the Odyssey are accurate because archeologists have discovered the ancient city of Troy.

[waynepii]

My point was that if my morality comes from the bible and a non-religious person's morality comes from philosophy or conscious thought process, then at best it only proves that the chances of turning out moral or immoral in religion or non-religion (atheism or secularism, socialism or communism) is 50/50.
I think a lot of a person's morality comes from their upbringing - parents, teachers, clergy, peers, etc.

Now here is a problem and the reason is, morality may be taught by your parents, clergy, peers etc. but it is not enforced. Ethics are enforced on the other hand and there are minute differences between the two. Ethics or value theory defines "How one evaluates right and wrong (which is morality) with respect to its society" and ethics are common as long as they adhere to the golden principle (this is not universal by the way).

I've acknowledged that it isn't a number of times.

Morality on the other hand is different, morals are the principles or the ways in which we are able to distinguish right from wrong.

As I said above even if morality is taught by peers clergy etc. it holds no ground on weighing the argument since we can not get any indicator to measure how much of this statement is true and how much consideration a person actually takes of all advices and morals taught by your parent etc before doing something. You will find that it is impossible to calculate, at least accurately. In my case it didn't work at all.

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought, sorry.

I understand your point about how many things could have prevented life as we know it by being slightly different. But given that the known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the probability of at least one star having a planet with the correct parameters doesn't seem quite so daunting.

I see your point - that out of billions you think it is an accident, a random occurrence, a mathematical probability, that it just so happens that we got it right. Well I keep it simple, I just think God is behind all of this.

I'd hardly say god is the simple solution.

When I was young, I was quite religious, even seriously thinking of entering the clergy. During that time, I considered every good thing that happened to me to be a blessing, for which I thanked god. But no matter how hard I tried to resist, doubts kept creeping in. The more research, thinking, and yes praying I did in an attempt to resolve my doubts, the more things I found that just didn't make sense. Eventually, I gave in and looked at things from a non-theist perspective. Looking at things non-theistically, I had fewer doubts and found what I considered much better answers. That was some 40 years ago, and while I keep an open mind concerning the existence of god (I really do, believe it or not), I have not seen anything to indicate god's existence. Several things seemed promising, but they all fell apart as I looked into them.

Well I believe you and that you have a open mind concerning the existence of God, I do. I would like to ask you respectfully, a few questions on your statement regarding "fewer doubts, much better answers, and things that didn't make sense", if you do not mind.

First question, how matter first originated? And I am hoping for a much better answer than than Biblical creation. To make it more clearer I am not asking you to prove your theory by proving that biblical creation is false, leave it out. for the arguments sake, lets say it is false Just tell me exclusively from your pov, intellectually or scientifically, anyway you would like, how matter first originated?

I don't know how matter first originated. Since you (theists) are claiming you DO know, it seems the onus is on you to prove your explanation. Of the number of hypotheses for the origin of all matter, I find a preexisting magical being powerful enough to cause everything else to come into existence from nothing to be very highly unlikely. There is very little (I would say no) credible evidence for the existence of magic, or magical beings.

[MarcusOfLycia]

I don't know how matter first originated. Since you (theists) are claiming you DO know, it seems the onus is on you to prove your explanation. Of the number of hypotheses for the origin of all matter, I find a preexisting magical being powerful enough to cause everything else to come into existence from nothing to be very highly unlikely. There is very little (I would say no) credible evidence for the existence of magic, or magical beings.

We've played this game on another thread. One, please stop using the term 'magical'. I hope we both know better terms than that.

Second, you know full well what the evidence is. You want absolute proof? None of us have it! The problem is, you have to acknowledge that SOMETHING is necessary for the existence of all that is.

[neo-x]

I don't know how matter first originated. Since you (theists) are claiming you DO know, it seems the onus is on you to prove your explanation. Of the number of hypotheses for the origin of all matter, I find a preexisting magical being powerful enough to cause everything else to come into existence from nothing to be very highly unlikely. There is very little (I would say no) credible evidence for the existence of magic, or magical beings.

LOL, I must say I am disappointed by your answer, since it was you who claimed that you did find "much better answers" outside of Bible. and I also wrote that nullifying the bible doesn't mean you are right by default. But when asked about your answers, you fail to give one, countering it with with a useless argument about "magical beings", I even asked you that for the arguments sake you can even assume what we are saying is false, just prove your point independently from us. Can you?

The problem is you can't tell how matter originated, you know why? because you end up having a paradox, matter can not come from nothing. so everything that is created must be created from pre-existing matter and where did that originate? you do not have the slightest idea. It is actually strange, because you can make your mind to believe that matter can exist from eternity, infinity, but not God. And even if you do not agree to the idea of God, you can not explain how it happened. That is the same thing you accuse us of. If you do not know how matter originated and we say we know but you say you don't agree with us than you are in the same shoes as us, only difference is you are without a God.

So I'd say you can take back your claim about the "much better" answer. you don't have one.

[neo-x]

The problem is, you have to acknowledge that SOMETHING is necessary for the existence of all that is

Very true. Greater problem is they do not know what that "SOMETHING" is.

[Byblos]

The "Law of Causality" exempts god from having to have a cause because god is neither finite nor contingent. It explains neither why god is infinite and necessary nor why the universe is finite. The Law of Causality is not a scientific law, it is a theological "law" that (IMO) was dreamed up to attempt to counter the "who created god?" response to the claim that god created the universe.

Then you do not understand the metaphysical aspects of the law of causality which postulates an uncaused cause. I thought I had made that clear by saying causality ran counter to infinite regress.

BTW I read the "Evidence For The Resurrection" article you linked in from an earlier post. The article claims the accuracy of the bible is "proven" since some of the events described in the bible have been verified archeologically. This is as valid as claiming the Iliad & the Odyssey are accurate because archeologists have discovered the ancient city of Troy.

Taken in and of themselves perhaps you could be right. Put together collectively, however, with all the over evidences, they do make a very compelling argument for the resurrection. Even if one does not come away believing it to be true, at a minimum they ought to come away with considering it as a possibility. If one is to be intellectually honest that is.

[Jarpenguin]

I don't know how matter first originated. Since you (theists) are claiming you DO know, it seems the onus is on you to prove your explanation. Of the number of hypotheses for the origin of all matter, I find a preexisting magical being powerful enough to cause everything else to come into existence from nothing to be very highly unlikely. There is very little (I would say no) credible evidence for the existence of magic, or magical beings.

I find that a random explosion resulting in the universe's creation is more unlikely than an all-powerful supernatural being creating the universe.

[waynepii]

I don't know how matter first originated. Since you (theists) are claiming you DO know, it seems the onus is on you to prove your explanation. Of the number of hypotheses for the origin of all matter, I find a preexisting magical being powerful enough to cause everything else to come into existence from nothing to be very highly unlikely. There is very little (I would say no) credible evidence for the existence of magic, or magical beings.

LOL, I must say I am disappointed by your answer, since it was you who claimed that you did find "much better answers" outside of Bible. and I also wrote that nullifying the bible doesn't mean you are right by default. But when asked about your answers, you fail to give one, countering it with with a useless argument about "magical beings", I even asked you that for the arguments sake you can even assume what we are saying is false, just prove your point independently from us. Can you?

I notice you routinely respond to requests for evidence backing up your assertion of how the universe came into existence by trying to turn the question back on me. I admit I don't know. It is conceivable that an all-powerful being outside of the laws of the universe created everything. It is also conceivable that everything came into existence from a big bang. It is conceivable that all the energy/matter always existed and just "vibrates" back and forth between states. When someone presents credible evidence for one or the other hypothesis, I'll be convinced. Until then, it's an open question. Do YOU have any credible evidence?

The problem is you can't tell how matter originated, you know why? because you end up having a paradox, matter can not come from nothing. so everything that is created must be created from pre-existing matter and where did that originate? you do not have the slightest idea. It is actually strange, because you can make your mind to believe that matter can exist from eternity, infinity, but not God. And even if you do not agree to the idea of God, you can not explain how it happened. That is the same thing you accuse us of. If you do not know how matter originated and we say we know but you say you don't agree with us than you are in the same shoes as us, only difference is you are without a God.

You (theists) DO claim to know the origin of matter (you even made the claim in this very post) - so what is your evidence? How are you sure you know the answer?

So I'd say you can take back your claim about the "much better" answer. you don't have one.

By "better answers", I was referring to the origin of life, its diversity of life, how the earth got to its present state, earth's place in the universe, etc. Science doesn't have definitive answers for all of these, but the scientific hypotheses are far more plausible than "god did it". I should have made that more clear, sorry for the confusion.