Religion

[RumbleFox]

7 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Sorry I'm a bit lost. I am not suggesting there is a scholar who has shown the resurrection theory to be true but rather there is not a scholar who has explained the facts successfully. 

 

The facts that I have mentioned must have an explanation, there has yet to be a credible non suoernatural explanation of the facts. 

But you have been citing scholarly evidence as one of your main arguments for the resurrection?  I am just really keen to read them as, as you well know, the fact something has not been proven is very different from saying "it is a fact"?  Which scholars in general were you talking about? X

Edited 20 July 2020 by RumbleFox

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, the fox said:

I am sure you know the concept of "infinite regression", there needs to be a Creator entity that is uncaused to start all of this. I think that's the only logical explanation. If there is another, I am interested in hearing.

 

Not all theories are equal. Some make more sense than  others. I actually don't think it is a moot point because it leads to the answer of "what created the universe". It is not science I know, but it a rather convincing philosophical argument.

Infinite regression is logically fallacious IMO - Aristotle was right there.

 

I'm no epistemologist, my keenness on science is purely empirical and as such I require empirical evidence for one theory to be given more weight than another and I'm not massively interested in theories that aren't open to at least some empirical analysis to give more weight to them and so be of practical application. Of course, some folks might disagree with that stance and prefer the philosophical arguments but it's where I am.

[RumbleFox]

6 minutes ago, the fox said:

Please send a link if you can

Of course.

 

This article is a great overview for someone like me who isn't a scientist and struggles with big words haha...

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/

 

This article slightly more academic but it has pretty much most the best thinkers/reference points in it......

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

 

X

 

 

[the fox]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Infinite regression is logically fallacious IMO - Aristotle was right there.

 

I'm no epistemologist, my keenness on science is purely empirical and as such I require empirical evidence for one theory to be given more weight than another and I'm not massively interested in theories that aren't open to at least some empirical analysis to give more weight to them and so be of practical application. Of course, some folks might disagree with that stance and prefer the philosophical arguments but it's where I am.

I am interested in knowing what part of the argument is considered a logical fallacy.

 

 

I think in a subject where science can't prove or disprove the existence of something, the best option is a philosophical argument

 

 

 

 

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

But you have been citing scholarly evidence as one of your main arguments for the resurrection?  I am just really keen to read them as, as you well know, the fact something has not been proven is very different from saying "it is a fact"?  Which scholars in general were you talking about? X

I think we are arguing two separate things. The scholarly evidence I cite is for the facts sorrundung the historical jesus, not the resurrection. My reason for believing the resurrection is that it is the best explanation for the facts. Are you asking for proof of the facts: that jesus existed, claimed to be the son of God, was crucified, was buried in the tomb of Joseph of arimethea, the tomb was found empty, and that several individuals and groups claimed to see the risen christ? 

[RumbleFox]

8 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I think we are arguing two separate things. The scholarly evidence I cite is for the facts sorrundung the historical jesus, not the resurrection. My reason for believing the resurrection is that it is the best explanation for the facts. Are you asking for proof of the facts: that jesus existed, claimed to be the son of God, was crucified, was buried in the tomb of Joseph of arimethea, the tomb was found empty, and that several individuals and groups claimed to see the risen christ? 

Well you have not made that clear, no one is arguing that Jesus did not exist but a man called Jesus existing and a man called Jesus existing, being the son of God and being resurrected is something very different.  You have made it sound like scholarly thinking supports the resurrection when it clearly does not. Not sure if this was my misunderstanding, you not explaining it very well or you being purposefully dishonest in your argument but I found it very misleading.  I will agree that someone called Jesus existed, I have never questioned that.  What I cannot agree on is that there is any shred of real "proof" that he was the son of God, nor that he was resurrected. X

 

EDIT:  And before you reply, saying "some people claim to have seen Him risen so therefore resurrection is the best answer" really is not proof of anything and stands up to zero scrutiny.  X

Edited 20 July 2020 by RumbleFox

[Benguin]

44 minutes ago, the fox said:

Yes I am.

 

If you want then it's OK for me.

 

I will make my case for Jesus not being the begotten son of god first if you don't mind.

 

The Abrahamic faiths always had one consistent message, and that is to worship the one and only God, the God of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses,  Solomon, David, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon all the prophets).

 

The first commandment says it, the Muslim Shahada says it, and Even Jesus in the Bible say it.

 

John 17:3 (NIV)

"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

 

as far as The begotten son claim goes, I have a few verse.

 

John 17:21

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

 

if the "I and the father are one" is used to prove the divinity of Jesus, than surely the 12 disciples are also included by that logic.

 

in John 17:20 Jesus said:

 

"I will go to my father and your father, my God and your God"

 

 

 

 

I agree with the first part with the exception of Muhammed. 

 

Where I disagree is the overwhelming amount of Scripture that demonstrates christ thought he was the son of God. 

 

I will use. John as an example given this is what you cite to disprove. 

 

John 1 18

 

John 10 33

 

John 5 18

 

 

[Benguin]

2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Well you have not made that clear, no one is arguing that Jesus did not exist but a man called Jesus existing and a man called Jesus existing, being the son of God and being resurrected is something very different.  You have made it sound like scholarly thinking supports the resurrection when it clearly does not. Not sure if this was my misunderstanding, you not explaining it very well or you being purposefully dishonest in your argument but I found it very misleading.  I will agree that someone called Jesus existed, I have never questioned that.  What I cannot agree on is that there is any shred of real "proof" that he was the son of God, nor that he was resurrected. X

Appologies its not clear. 

 

The information I have posted about the historical jesus is widely considered fact by scholars. Given that these things are true, we need to explain why they happened. My contention is that these facts are best explained by the resurrection. 

[RumbleFox]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

Appologies its not clear. 

 

The information I have posted about the historical jesus is widely considered fact by scholars. Given that these things are true, we need to explain why they happened. My contention is that these facts are best explained by the resurrection. 

My contention is that pretty much ANY other explanation is more believable than "he came back from the dead?"  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.  X

[the fox]

16 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

Of course.

 

This article is a great overview for someone like me who isn't a scientist and struggles with big words haha...

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/

 

This article slightly more academic but it has pretty much most the best thinkers/reference points in it......

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

 

X

 

 

I've looked at the first link and i found this bit interesting

 

So it appears that the sights, sounds and other sensations of life as we experience it are generated by regions within the posterior cortex. As far as we can tell, almost all conscious experiences have their origin there. What is the crucial difference between these posterior regions and much of the prefrontal cortex, which does not directly contribute to subjective content? The truth is that we do not know. Even so—and excitingly—a recent finding indicates that neuroscientists may be getting closer.

 

There was nothing new there IMO. Most people know that some place of the brain are responsible for human senses. And they admitted that that's as far as they have gotten. Which doesn't explain where did the consciousness come from.

 

Maybe I will give it another try if I have the time. But thanks again for the link.

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, RumbleFox said:

My contention is that pretty much ANY other explanation is more believable than "he came back from the dead?"  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.  X

That's fair enough. The only issue is no one has adequately explained the facts so there isn't a theory that stands uo to scrutiny.

 

We can then, either try and find another theory, simply say we don't know or apply occams razor. The latter may very well be contentious but when I personally look at, the resdurection theory is the simplest and the most likely imo. Therefore in regards to this debate, we can either park it in disagreement in that fact or you can presentt an explanation of the facts that is more credible. Otherwise we're just going in circles. 

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, the fox said:

I am interested in knowing what part of the argument is considered a logical fallacy.

 

I think in a subject where science can't prove or disprove the existence of something, the best option is a philosophical argument

 

 

https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Infinite Regress.html

 

This explains it much better than I can.

 

I have no problem at all with people using philosophical arguments to try to explain what empiricism cannot, but I do take issue when those arguments are then given equal weight in fact to theories proven by empiricism when they are clearly not. Which can and does happen.

[Benguin]

Just a question to the atheists. 

 

Are you nihilists and if not is it just that this worldview is suppressed, or do you have good reasons to suggest there is an alternative in a life without a divine creator? Always been curious of this, having myself rejecting nihilism in my athiest days but for no good reason. 

[the fox]

18 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I agree with the first part with the exception of Muhammed. 

 

Where I disagree is the overwhelming amount of Scripture that demonstrates christ thought he was the son of God. 

 

I will use. John as an example given this is what you cite to disprove. 

 

John 1 18

 

John 10 33

 

John 5 18

 

 

So, there are contradictions? Because Jesus is saying one thing yet john is saying another thing all together. Just like Paul.

 

Nobody knows who john is. He wasn't a disciples and wasn't an eye witness. 

 

So, are we gonna take Jesus's words in the bible, or Matthew, mark, Luke, and John (and of course Paul)?

 

I'm but using an example from the Bible because it's what the Christians believe in. If Jesus

Say "the father is the only true God" and John comes and says "Jesus is God". Than that's obvious contradiction.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, the fox said:

So, there are contradictions? Because Jesus is saying one thing yet john is saying another thing all together. Just like Paul.

 

Nobody knows who john is. He wasn't a disciples and wasn't an eye witness. 

 

So, are we gonna take Jesus's words in the bible, or Matthew, mark, Luke, and John (and of course Paul)?

 

I'm but using an example from the Bible because it's what the Christians believe in. If Jesus

Say "the father is the only true God" and John comes and says "Jesus is God". Than that's obvious contradiction.

No we belive in a trinity. I probably mispoke there. 

 

There are three persons: father, son and holy spirit who are all fully God. 

 

We have to take all of Scripture, examine it and see where it leads. Jesus says he is the only way. 

 

What's your view on the crucifixion? 

[the fox]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

No we belive in a trinity. I probably mispoke there. 

 

There are three persons: father, son and holy spirit who are all fully God. 

 

We have to take all of Scripture, examine it and see where it leads. Jesus says he is the only way. 

 

What's your view on the crucifixion? 

The concept of a Trinity didn't become a thing until the 4th century. 

 

So 3 Gods? They can't be all fully God and when they are in unity they become 1. Also Jesus in the bible said that he can't do anything by himself and the father is more knowledgeable than he is because only the father knows the hour.

 

1+1+1= 3 not 1

 

Jesus says he's the only way in the bible, but he isn't the destination. 

 

 

We believe that he wasn't crucified.

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, the fox said:

The concept of a Trinity didn't become a thing until the 4th century. 

 

So 3 Gods? They can't be all fully God and when they are in unity they become 1. Also Jesus in the bible said that he can't do anything by himself and the father is more knowledgeable than he is because only the father knows the hour.

 

1+1+1= 3 not 1

 

Jesus says he's the only way in the bible, but he isn't the destination. 

 

 

We believe that he wasn't crucified.

The father is creator of the universe, jesus is God as man, the Holy spirit is God who gives us power (sanctification etc) jesus is not the father or the holy spirit but is God, and vicaversa. Christianity can easily be misrepresented as polytheism but it is not. 

 

What is your explanation for the overwhelming evidence that Jesus was crucified? 

 

Quote:

 

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. 

 

I'm not sure how anyone can believe Jesus did anything without first believing the basic facts about Jesus. 

[the fox]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Infinite Regress.html

 

This explains it much better than I can.

 

I have no problem at all with people using philosophical arguments to try to explain what empiricism cannot, but I do take issue when those arguments are then given equal weight in fact to theories proven by empiricism when they are clearly not. Which can and does happen.

I think we differ in the understanding of what a logical fallacy is. For me, it is a logical error in reasoning that makes the argument invalid. For example, the strawman argument or appealing to authority argument. But we can agree to disagree.

 

 

Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God because it tries to explain every with natural cause. So we are only left with philosophical arguments.

 

 

[Houdini Logic]

I find talking to people on either extreme difficult, and that in itself is a real shame as I'd be keen to gather more opinions. No different to most things I guess 

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

So you're saying that juraselem with both Roman and Jewish law were not controlling enough, so a bunch of rebels made up a story seemingly liberating folks from such control for no financial gain and in most cases a horrific death sentence, to control us all? Hmm that seems ludicrous. 

Religion didn't start with the christians, the egyptians were using it 2500 years before christianity to control the people.

[the fox]

12 minutes ago, Benguin said:

The father is creator of the universe, jesus is God as man, the Holy spirit is God who gives us power (sanctification etc) jesus is not the father or the holy spirit but is God, and vicaversa. Christianity can easily be misrepresented as polytheism but it is not. 

 

What is your explanation for the overwhelming evidence that Jesus was crucified? 

 

Quote:

 

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. 

 

I'm not sure how anyone can believe Jesus did anything without first believing the basic facts about Jesus. 

In Christianity, does God have a God? Multiple Gods, human sacrifice, forgiveness by blood, god becoming human. That has no link to monotheism.

 

What overwhelming evidence?

 

Jesus prayed in the bible to not be crucified, and if his prayers weren't answered, than what chance does normal people have.

 

 

Edited 20 July 2020 by the fox

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Religion didn't start with the christians, the egyptians were using it 2500 years before christianity to control the people.

Yes but you're asserting Christianity was created to control people, for that to be the case you would need to be able to demonstrate, that those who created it, controlled people. Are you able to do that? 

[RumbleFox]

54 minutes ago, the fox said:

I've looked at the first link and i found this bit interesting

 

So it appears that the sights, sounds and other sensations of life as we experience it are generated by regions within the posterior cortex. As far as we can tell, almost all conscious experiences have their origin there. What is the crucial difference between these posterior regions and much of the prefrontal cortex, which does not directly contribute to subjective content? The truth is that we do not know. Even so—and excitingly—a recent finding indicates that neuroscientists may be getting closer.

 

There was nothing new there IMO. Most people know that some place of the brain are responsible for human senses. And they admitted that that's as far as they have gotten. Which doesn't explain where did the consciousness come from.

 

Maybe I will give it another try if I have the time. But thanks again for the link.

It’s really interesting. Just because something isn’t yet known doesn’t mean it is not knowable, I think that’s how I see it. It’s the God of the gaps theory. X

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, the fox said:

I think we differ in the understanding of what a logical fallacy is. For me, it is a logical error in reasoning that makes the argument invalid. For example, the strawman argument or appealing to authority argument. But we can agree to disagree.

 

 

Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God because it tries to explain every with natural cause. So we are only left with philosophical arguments.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

I think you're likely right with the second paragraph there, and I think I've been pretty clear that I'm fine with that - it's why I'm agnostic and not atheist. I'll take equal issue with people who try to use philosophical arguments and present them as truth/fact either way tbh.

[RumbleFox]

54 minutes ago, Benguin said:

That's fair enough. The only issue is no one has adequately explained the facts so there isn't a theory that stands uo to scrutiny.

 

We can then, either try and find another theory, simply say we don't know or apply occams razor. The latter may very well be contentious but when I personally look at, the resdurection theory is the simplest and the most likely imo. Therefore in regards to this debate, we can either park it in disagreement in that fact or you can presentt an explanation of the facts that is more credible. Otherwise we're just going in circles. 

I just don’t see that a resurrection can ever be described as the “simplest and most likely” explanation to anything. It is a miracle, by its very nature not simple or likely surely? Anyhoo, we can agree to disagree I suppose.