| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2013 10:57:08 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... If Jesus did not appear alive to his followers (the Bible claims he appeared to more than 500 followers) ... |
I'm not sure I would put much stock in witness accounts. Thousands more people than that have been abducted by aliens. |
The number is irrelevant. The point is that Jesus appeared alive to numerous people, and if that didn't happen then there is no logical explanation for the existence of the Christian religion.
|
There's no logical explanation for Fox news or space aliens either, but plenty of witnesses around that believe that both exist. |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 11:01:49 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by Ann:
There's no logical explanation for Fox news... |
Well, the LOGICAL explanation for Faux News is that they are agents of the devil... :-) |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 11:21:15 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What I keep trying to explain is that various aspects of my faith (i.e., claims of my religion, biblical teachings, etc...) are strongly backed up by logic, and it is those logically sound aspects of my faith (think religion) which helps to increase my faith (think belief). |
just because someone comes up with a theory doesn't make it logical, it makes it plausible. |
Actually, a theory can be logical and yet not plausible, but a theory that is not logical cannot be plausible. |
Modern physics seems to make this less true. :) |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 12:18:24 AM · #329 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Ann:
There's no logical explanation for Fox news... |
Well, the LOGICAL explanation for Faux News is that they are agents of the devil... :-) |
Fox News is just a natural progression of being a corporation in a capitalist society led by the almighty dollar. Fox is just the poster boy but every other major news organization pseudo-news / entertainment organizations in the US have fallen to the same corruption. |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 12:21:52 AM · #330 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What I keep trying to explain is that various aspects of my faith (i.e., claims of my religion, biblical teachings, etc...) are strongly backed up by logic, and it is those logically sound aspects of my faith (think religion) which helps to increase my faith (think belief). |
just because someone comes up with a theory doesn't make it logical, it makes it plausible. |
Actually, a theory can be logical and yet not plausible, but a theory that is not logical cannot be plausible. |
Modern physics seems to make this less true. :) |
Not really. Anything that isn't quite understood yet will appear that way. |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 12:36:48 AM · #331 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Not really. Anything that isn't quite understood yet will appear that way. |
I was mainly just making a joke, but you hit on an important truth there. Here's one of those navel-gazing questions. Do you think there is any truth beyond human comprehension? You can keep it in the scientific realm if it makes you more comfortable. Could there be truths that are just too much for our little meat brain to digest? If so...what then? |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 12:36:48 AM · #332 |
Double post
Message edited by author 2013-04-22 00:37:06. |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 08:27:37 AM · #333 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Allow me to get even more specific... take the empty tomb, for example. Many different arguments have been proposed as to how Jesus' tomb could have been found empty. The Biblical claim is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. A popular alternative explanation is the resuscitation theory. This theory claims that Jesus was near death, but did not actually die on the cross. He was weakened to the point of appearing dead to professional physicians but not actually dead, despite the fact that he was stabbed with a spear by a Roman soldier to ensure his death. Then, after a few days in a tomb with no medical treatment, food, or water to revive him, Jesus regained enough strength to remove a large boulder by himself (one that would normally take multiple strong, healthy men to move) and walk out of the tomb. Further, he revived so quickly that in the following days when he appeared to his disciples, he was back to perfect health.
|
i find it interesting that in the attempt to come up with a more plausible scenario, the message is cheapened. You have created a major contradiction to foundation of the entire New testament.
If what you say can be true, than Jesus isn't the savior of man, he simply a very resilient man.
Jesus DIED or so the story goes. He took upon himself the sins of the world and through his DEATH, man now has salvation. So if Jesus doesn't DIE, man cannot be saved.
Message edited by author 2013-04-22 08:28:22. |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 10:56:40 AM · #334 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Allow me to get even more specific... take the empty tomb, for example. Many different arguments have been proposed as to how Jesus' tomb could have been found empty. The Biblical claim is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. A popular alternative explanation is the resuscitation theory. This theory claims that Jesus was near death, but did not actually die on the cross. He was weakened to the point of appearing dead to professional physicians but not actually dead, despite the fact that he was stabbed with a spear by a Roman soldier to ensure his death. Then, after a few days in a tomb with no medical treatment, food, or water to revive him, Jesus regained enough strength to remove a large boulder by himself (one that would normally take multiple strong, healthy men to move) and walk out of the tomb. Further, he revived so quickly that in the following days when he appeared to his disciples, he was back to perfect health.
|
i find it interesting that in the attempt to come up with a more plausible scenario, the message is cheapened. You have created a major contradiction to foundation of the entire New testament.
If what you say can be true, than Jesus isn't the savior of man, he simply a very resilient man.
Jesus DIED or so the story goes. He took upon himself the sins of the world and through his DEATH, man now has salvation. So if Jesus doesn't DIE, man cannot be saved. |
Mike, Johnny's not PROMOTING this theory, he's using it as an example of an alternative theory, floated by non-believers, that he finds LESS logical/reasonable than the resurrection doctrine. |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 11:11:19 AM · #335 |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 11:30:14 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i'm clearly lost. |
A little later in the same post you were quoting, Johanny said this:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So it boils down to this. Is it more logical that a man would be able to survive execution at the hands of professional executors, with an additional spear through the side for good measure, and that a professional physician would be unable to determine whether this man was dead or alive, and that this man would somehow revive from these injuries without medical treatment, food, or water, and that this man would be able to regain enough strength to move a massive boulder on his own, and that this man would look well enough after all that to convince his friends that he was alive and well... or is it more logical that God (if he exists) would have the power to raise this man from the dead?
As you can see, the alternative theory (i.e., the scientific explanation) is outrageously improbable. The biblical claim simply hinges on one question: does God exist? Once you have faith (i.e., the fundamental belief in the existence of God) as I have, then logic can be quite helpful in increasing that faith. |
Does that help? |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 06:12:43 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
i'm clearly lost. |
A little later in the same post you were quoting, Johanny said this:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So it boils down to this. Is it more logical that a man would be able to survive execution at the hands of professional executors, with an additional spear through the side for good measure, and that a professional physician would be unable to determine whether this man was dead or alive, and that this man would somehow revive from these injuries without medical treatment, food, or water, and that this man would be able to regain enough strength to move a massive boulder on his own, and that this man would look well enough after all that to convince his friends that he was alive and well... or is it more logical that God (if he exists) would have the power to raise this man from the dead?
As you can see, the alternative theory (i.e., the scientific explanation) is outrageously improbable. The biblical claim simply hinges on one question: does God exist? Once you have faith (i.e., the fundamental belief in the existence of God) as I have, then logic can be quite helpful in increasing that faith. |
Does that help? |
It does for me... but most assuredly not in the manner that it does for our friend  Johnnyphoto... possibly due to my lack of faith. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 09:55:13 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Not really. Anything that isn't quite understood yet will appear that way. |
I was mainly just making a joke, but you hit on an important truth there. Here's one of those navel-gazing questions. Do you think there is any truth beyond human comprehension? You can keep it in the scientific realm if it makes you more comfortable. Could there be truths that are just too much for our little meat brain to digest? If so...what then? |
I think we have already hit that point for the vast majority of humans. |
|
|
|
04/22/2013 10:11:23 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I think we have already hit that point for the vast majority of humans. |
:D |
|
|
|
04/23/2013 10:31:34 AM · #340 |
Check it out - Christian style extremely late term abortions - using only prayer!
Message edited by author 2013-04-23 10:31:58. |
|
|
|
04/23/2013 12:04:11 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Not really. Anything that isn't quite understood yet will appear that way. |
I was mainly just making a joke, but you hit on an important truth there. Here's one of those navel-gazing questions. Do you think there is any truth beyond human comprehension? You can keep it in the scientific realm if it makes you more comfortable. Could there be truths that are just too much for our little meat brain to digest? If so...what then? |
I think we have already hit that point for the vast majority of humans. |
You are possibly right. I think we can take it further and assume it is reasonable to think that there are things the very smartest among us can or will never grasp. Why would we assume otherwise?
But think about it. Where does that put us? Previously we were saying that we should only consider "logical and plausible" explanations for everything. Eventually however, we should understand we will get to the end of "logical and plausible" and yet there will still be truth to be had. Doesn't that suddenly put theist and scientist on a much more even footing?
Now, I know the very first response will be, "but we shouldn't stop looking or trying to understand" and I 100% agree. Any theist/philosopher who does not see the benefit of the scientific method has blinded themselves. So don't go bringing this up. (I know someone isn't going to read this far and is going to do it anyway...)
The point, as is pretty well always my point, is that we are all in the same boat much more than we think and, thus, should have a point of common understanding. |
|
|
|
04/23/2013 12:40:00 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Not really. Anything that isn't quite understood yet will appear that way. |
I was mainly just making a joke, but you hit on an important truth there. Here's one of those navel-gazing questions. Do you think there is any truth beyond human comprehension? You can keep it in the scientific realm if it makes you more comfortable. Could there be truths that are just too much for our little meat brain to digest? If so...what then? |
I think we have already hit that point for the vast majority of humans. |
You are possibly right. I think we can take it further and assume it is reasonable to think that there are things the very smartest among us can or will never grasp. Why would we assume otherwise?
But think about it. Where does that put us? Previously we were saying that we should only consider "logical and plausible" explanations for everything. Eventually however, we should understand we will get to the end of "logical and plausible" and yet there will still be truth to be had. Doesn't that suddenly put theist and scientist on a much more even footing?
Now, I know the very first response will be, "but we shouldn't stop looking or trying to understand" and I 100% agree. Any theist/philosopher who does not see the benefit of the scientific method has blinded themselves. So don't go bringing this up. (I know someone isn't going to read this far and is going to do it anyway...)
The point, as is pretty well always my point, is that we are all in the same boat much more than we think and, thus, should have a point of common understanding. |
And I strongly disagree with your premise. I think we will eventually understand everything, it's only a matter of patience, and working it all out using the tools that we know to work.
I do, however, agree with your final point, as that we are all in the same boat much more than we think. However, the point of common understanding that I suspect you'd recommend is Christianity, which has repeatedly proven to not be a common point of understanding at all. |
|
|
|
04/23/2013 01:21:51 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I think we will eventually understand everything. |
Honestly, do you think this, in itself, is a logical or plausible idea? Some of the smartest species on our planet that aren't us cannot grasp even simple concepts. Dogs don't understand calculus. Chimps have no concept of chemistry. etc. etc. So to think that we, as a single species on Earth, have evolved to a level where ALL knowledge is within our understanding seems like a large leap that would defy both logic (all other species have limitations why wouldn't we?) and plausibility. As Richard said, there are things that are beyond individuals. Most of us could never fully understand quantum mathematics even if we applies ourselves to try. Why wouldn't there be similar processes that even the smartest among us can't understand?
However, you are welcome to take it as a point of faith.
BTW, the commmon ground is that all our worldviews are ultimately built on things we do not fully comprehend.
Message edited by author 2013-04-23 13:24:03. |
|
|
|
04/23/2013 08:35:38 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Not really. Anything that isn't quite understood yet will appear that way. |
I was mainly just making a joke, but you hit on an important truth there. Here's one of those navel-gazing questions. Do you think there is any truth beyond human comprehension? You can keep it in the scientific realm if it makes you more comfortable. Could there be truths that are just too much for our little meat brain to digest? If so...what then? |
I think we have already hit that point for the vast majority of humans. |
You are possibly right. I think we can take it further and assume it is reasonable to think that there are things the very smartest among us can or will never grasp. Why would we assume otherwise?
But think about it. Where does that put us? Previously we were saying that we should only consider "logical and plausible" explanations for everything. Eventually however, we should understand we will get to the end of "logical and plausible" and yet there will still be truth to be had. Doesn't that suddenly put theist and scientist on a much more even footing?
Now, I know the very first response will be, "but we shouldn't stop looking or trying to understand" and I 100% agree. Any theist/philosopher who does not see the benefit of the scientific method has blinded themselves. So don't go bringing this up. (I know someone isn't going to read this far and is going to do it anyway...)
The point, as is pretty well always my point, is that we are all in the same boat much more than we think and, thus, should have a point of common understanding. |
It's an interesting dilemma. If we're in the same boat do you let the scientist or the theist paddle? Or put another way, if you're the only man on the boat what would you prefer to have? Would you want the paddle that was state-of-the-art, built with the finest materials and constantly improved for millennia? or the 2000 year old paddle held together with duct tape, its wood rotting, with termites that smile back at you? I suppose if you stared at the featureless horizon long enough you might opt for the termites. Maybe they will even talk after awhile.
Message edited by author 2013-04-23 20:36:27. |
|
|
|
04/23/2013 09:28:10 PM · #345 |
I was thinking more of the paddle that had withstood 2000 years of use and abuse and yet was still functioning quite well. ;). I guess it's all a matter of perspective...
In a more reconciliatory tone I would say one paddle is clearly marked starboard and one is marked port. We aren't gonna get anywhere if we use them incorrectly.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2013 12:48:15 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was thinking more of the paddle that had withstood 2000 years of use and abuse and yet was still functioning quite well. ;). I guess it's all a matter of perspective...
In a more reconciliatory tone I would say one paddle is clearly marked starboard and one is marked port. We aren't gonna get anywhere if we use them incorrectly. |
Yes, but the state-of-the-art, modern material made paddle can be used by anyone on any body of water anywhere, but the 2000 year old paddle will certainly not work for many.
Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and even Unitarians can use the modern paddle with no adjustment issues.....
|
|
|
|
04/24/2013 01:16:38 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was thinking more of the paddle that had withstood 2000 years of use and abuse and yet was still functioning quite well. ;). I guess it's all a matter of perspective...
In a more reconciliatory tone I would say one paddle is clearly marked starboard and one is marked port. We aren't gonna get anywhere if we use them incorrectly. |
Yes, but the state-of-the-art, modern material made paddle can be used by anyone on any body of water anywhere, but the 2000 year old paddle will certainly not work for many.
Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and even Unitarians can use the modern paddle with no adjustment issues..... |
Quite right. |
|
|
|
04/24/2013 01:48:39 PM · #348 |
| How far can you stretch an analogy before it can no longer cut the mustard? Or even the water? |
|
|
|
04/24/2013 03:26:57 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
How far can you stretch an analogy before it can no longer cut the mustard? Or even the water? |
Dunno, but it's still working at this point. |
|
|
|
04/24/2013 04:46:39 PM · #350 |
I'll just tell the atheist that it's scientifically impossible for one man to row about and then I'll sit back and relax while he uses both paddles to prove me wrong.
Problem solved. |
|
