Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ulrich · 01-31-2001, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:
1) Thallus & Phlegon - There are no existant copies of the works of either of these men. Julius Africanus mentions that the works of these men confirm that the sun darkened for three hours when Jesus was crucified. Julius also makes it clear that neither man mentioned Jesus, and that both attributed the darkening to a solar eclipse.

Meta (Before) => Yea,but they document the historicity of a NT event. The darkness could not have been an equilpse becasue of the time of year at which it occurred.

Ulrich - Only according to Julius, Phlegon and Thallus apparently had no problem with attributing it to a perfectly natural event. They presumably would have known as much about astronomy as Julius, who retroactively decides that the event was supernatural. Julius also had a vested interest in making it appear that secular sources confirmed the event, as he was a church father. Without any existing copies of the histories of these men, though, we cannot be sure.

Meta => He didn't know he was a Chruch father, so it's not like he was trying to save his future rep. He is a creible source, and before Tacitus was discovered he was the best source aside from Josephus. The event could not have been a natural one:

Ulrich - Whether or not Julius Africanus realized that he would later be called a Church Father is quite beside the point. He was a 3rd century Christian apologist, which provides all the bias one needs to misrepresent events. As a matter of fact we don't even have any existant works by Julius Africanus, what we know about his writings comes to us from the 9th century monk George Syncellus, who was composing a world chronology. This leaves even more room for interpolation.

Quote:

Phlegon was a historian who lived in the first century. There are two books credited to his name: Chronicles and the Olympiads. Little is known about Phlegon but he made reference to Christ. The first two quotes are unique to Origen and the last quote below is recorded by Origen and Philopon.

"Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions."
Origen Against Celsus

"And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place . . . � Origen Against Celsus

"Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." De. opif. mund. II21

Ulrich - How about this quote from Origen: "Phlegon, who mentioned an eclipse during the reign of Tiberius Ceasar, did not say that it happened during the full moon." - Commentary on Matthew

Even though we do not have any existant copies of Phlegon's work, we do have a direct quotation of the passage in question from Eusebius: "In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: "Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 AD], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour [noon] that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea."

It is worth noting that Phlegon does not mention that these events occured during a single day, rather during a single year (32 CE). Also, Phlegon makes it clear that the earthquake occured in Bithynia, a town on the coast of the Black Sea, some 500 miles from Jerusalem. Not even the strongest of quakes would have been felt that far away.

I will have to get back to the rest of this later (hopefully yet today), as work beckons.

Ulrich · 01-31-2001, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Metacrock:
2) Josephus - Any credible historian (secular or theistic) will tell you that the Josephus passage was subject to some form of interlopation between the time it was written (1st century CE) and the time of the earliest existant copy (8th century CE). Since the authenticity of the passage is questionable at best, it shouldn't be held as evidence. If you want the exact details, they can be discussed, but I am sure you already know of the interlopation and the ramifications of it.

Meta => Any credible historian will tell you that this does not invalidate the passge. "Some amount of interpolation" does not mean made up from whole cloth. the arabic text proves that the original passage did speak of Jesus. Moreover there is another paassage which is never seriously questioned.That is the one on James, which designates him as Jesus' brother. IN fact whole athist websites are devoted to proving the validity of the passage, so that is far from invalidated.

Ulrich - The arabic text still comes hundreds of years after the book was written, and further, church fathers who wrote extensively, much closer to the time that Josephus wrote, make no mention of the passage when it would have clearly benefited them. Historians disagree as to the degree of interlopation involved, ranging from a total insertion to a simple rewording, but it is enough to cast serious doubt. Given that Josephus is the only source that comes close to being solid evidence, there should be no doubt if the historicity of Jesus is to be believed.

Meta => Many credible historians accept the Arabic passge as proof that the original did mention Jesus.

Ulrich - Many historians (credible and otherwise) also recognize that the Arabic Passage has been dated to the 10th century, and that the writer may have been working with a copy of Josephus that had already been interpolated.

Quote:

4) Tacitus - Tacitus simply mentions that there were Christians in Rome during the time of Nero, and that they were persecuted. He also says that their leader was named Chrestus. Once again, this is not a passage that in any way vaguely implies that Jesus ever lived.

Meta => Tacitus is well defended by Holding. He believed in absoulte documentation. He also had a hobby of exposing false resurrection claims. He had access to the archieves and was in a position to know the facts on the life of Christ. The fact that he deosn't challenged the historicity of his life indicates that he undestood him to be an hisorical character.

Ulrich - But he manages to get Pilate's job title wrong doesn't he? This leads some think that portions of Tacitus have been reworked by later hands, though I certainly agree that he at least makes mentions of the Christians, and "Christus, from whom the name had it's origin". It simply shows that Tacitus had some knowledge of the beliefs and origins of Christianity. It certainly was not uncommon for the Romans to have knowledge of various religious beliefs, they worshipped enough gods.

MEta =>That doesn't answer the argument. He bleieved in having the facts, believed in it ardently. He researched resurrection calims as a matter of course, he had access to the imperial archieves and other archieves so he was in a position to know, he had a motive to know, why would he not have researched it?

Ulrich - In my opinion it does answer the argument, because if Tacitus got Pilate's job title wrong it shows that either he did not research the topic a thoroughly as you claim he did, or that portions of the passage were interpolated at a later date.

Quote:

Unless you think that at the end of this quote Celsus is actually professing his belief in Jesus as the 'Son of God'. Ignoring the fact that he doesn't mention Jesus by name, the tone of the passage should make it obvious that this is not what he is doing.

MEta => He's not professing actual belief but he does imply his historicity. That's not true, actually he presents the same information about him that is found in the Mishna. He speaks of his birth, his mother Mary (who he says was a hair dresser which is what the Msihna says) and even alludes to the Pandera thing about the son of a Roman soldier.

Ulrich - There is no doubt that Celsus thought Jesus was an actual historical person, he argues that Jesus was a magician after all, but then again Celsus lived and wrote in the latter half of the second century (ca. 178 CE), and so is not a contemporaneous source. Celsus was also very critical of the Christians. "Some [Christians] ," says Celsus, "do not even want to give or to receive a reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as "do not ask questions; just believe,' and "Your faith will save you.' - sound familiar?

Meta => Celsus clealry thought Jesus was an histoirical figure. The soruces he used were clearly the root sources of the Mishna acocunts and go back to the first century. Celsus was a skpetic writting against Christanity. If he had any inkling that Jesus wasn't a real guy why would he not have said so?

Ulrich - Celsus was writing during the latter half of the second century, a full 150 years after the supposed life of Christ. He was not a contemporaneous source, and therefore, whether or not he believed jesus to be a historical figure is irrelevent. Celsus was in the position of arguing that Jesus was a charlatan, a sorcerer, and definately not a divine being. It certainly behooved Celsus' argument to recognize Jesus as a historical figure. It would be tantamount to arguments I have engaged in during the past, in which I have conceeded the historicity of Jesus in order to engage the topic of his divinity. I am certainly not adamant that Jesus was not a historical person, and if it were proven that he did exist I could accept that without having to buy into the 'Son of God' bit. I just don't think that it has been adequetely established that he was a historical person. I think a lot of work on the subject has been done in the past with the preconcieved notion that Jesus did exist, and I don't think that notion is justified.

Quote:

8) Mara Bar Serapion - A letter by a man (not a historian) to his father penned sometime after 70 CE, in which he says the fall of the Jews could have been avoided if they had not executed their "most Wise King". No mention of the name Jesus, but it is obvious to whom he is referring. I hardly see how this helps build a case for the truth of his historical existence, as this was obviously non-contemporaneous to the supposed life of Jesus.

Meta => Yea he was thinking of some other King of Kings crucified as Messiah in Palestine int he first century.

Ulrich - The point is that the man was obviously a believer, living some time after the date given for Jesus' death, and he was certainly not a historian. This is only proof that Christians existed and wrote letters during the first century CE.

Meta => NO he clealry wasn't a believer, he gets basic points of doctrine wrong in ways that no Christian would. He never says "Our Lord" and if he was a Christian in that period he would have named him by name and probably refurred to him as "our lord Jesus Christ."

Ulrich - Please don't drag the "No True Scotsman" fallacy into this discussion. We have had good discussion so for, and I would hate to spoil it by dragging it down to those depths. Perhaps the writer was a recent convert, not yet taught the intricacies of the faith. Also, if this person was a Christian it is the first known writing by a Christian outside of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles. The next closest Christian writings we have come from the Church Fathers and begin at about 120 CE. Why would we expect a common man to use the same flowery language that the Gospel authors and Church Fathers used?

Meta =>Moreover, why is it that there is not one single historian who even half suspects that Jesus didn't exist as an historical figure (form the anceint world that is?)

Ulrich - Because historians are in the business of reporting what actually happened, not what didn't happen. So far we haven't established beyond a reasonable doubt that any historian contemporary to the life of Jesus recorded his life as factual. So far Josephus is as close as anyone has come, and we are already discussing the problems inherent in that particular history.

Quote:

Ulrich - You had better check your sources, I have never seen the Mishna dated to before 200 CE (Judaism FAQ - soc.culture.jewish). If you have better info on this I would like to see it.

Meta => The Mishna itself is older but the sources it draws upon go back to the first century. this is meantioned by many shcoalrs. See Alfred Edersheim Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

Ulrich - Unless you can show what those sources were, and exactly what they said, this argument falls to mere speculation. So there were some sources for the Mishna that were written in the first century, and the Mishna mentions Jesus. This does not mean that those first century sources actually mention Jesus.

Quote:

10) Lucian - He gives the following account of Peregrinus, who publicly burnt himself in Greece soon after the Olympic games, about the year 165: "Peregrinus, or Proteus, appears for a while to have imposed on the Christians, and to have joined himself to them." Lucian, after saying that "Peregrinus learned the wonderful doctrine of the Christians by conversing with the priests and scribes near Palestine," he also goes on to observe that they "still worship that great man who was crucified in Palestine, because he introduced into the world this new religion,". He goes on to tell us of Peregrinus' arrest and imprisonment, and the fact that the local Cristians were very upset, and later informs us that Peregrinus was set at liberty by the governor of Syria, and that at length he parted from the Christians. Once again this is not ringing endorsement of the historicity of Jesus, but rather a detail of how Christians of that day acted and were percieved.

Meta -=> Lucean like Tacitus had a totally passonate committment to researching his soruces. What he says clearly implies that he understood Jesus as a real person. and he absolutely and unequivically did not believe in speaking about things that he coudln't prove. He was a fine historian , even though he actually was a play write So there is every reason to expect that he had info about jesus.

Ulrich - Lucian as well was writing at least a hundred years after Jesus lived, and he is simply relating the beliefs of the Christians to the reader, he offers us no proof as to whether or not Jesus actually lived.

MEta => I don't know why you think that living after the first century is a problem. That's why they were historians. The assumption is that they didn't have access to the facts, but they did. They had access to a vast archieve and had there been any hint of the notion that Jesus wasn't an historical person they surely would have said this, at least some historian form that era would have done so.

Ulrich - The reason it is a problem is that, in order to prove that Jesus actually lived with any degree of certainty, we need to find contemporaneous sources of a secular nature. Josephus was close enough to be a contemporaneous source, and he was a secular historian in regards to Christianity. If the Josephus passage could be proven it would be enough (for me anyway), to lay aside my skepticism and accept the historicity of Jesus.

The silence of historians should never be criteria for judging that an event did happen. This is doubly so in the case of the historicity of Jesus, for we know that later Christians burned many ancient works that did not agree with their veiw of history, and actively changed other ancient works to make it appear that those historians agreed with the Christian viewpoint. Given that knowledge I am much more comfortable with the position that jesus was not an historical person until indisputable evidence can be found to the contrary.

[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited January 31, 2001).]

02-01-2001, 04:48 AM

Quote:

As also the "religious" go against the grain of relative morality and that which promotes it, in order to answer questions about existence and purpose. They are two different realms of study. When Christians have tried to speak to the workings of the universe, they have often been mistaken. Equally so, when science has tried to speak to purpose and morality, it has made many mistakes.

Science admits to its mistakes and benefits itself by proving them wrong. Religious groups traditionally hold a hard stance as to what knowledge is "true", and fortunately scientists do not give up their search for the truth because of pressure from religious groups. The unrelenting pursuit of the truth by scientists has given mankind many benefits.

To state that science cannot address purpose and morality is wrong. Do you think that the study of morality was not taken up by the Greeks, the Jews, Taoists, and Warlords of many cultures? Science addresses the laws of nature, that are UNBREAKABLE, and do not change. Religious and philosophical thought have evolved out of nature, out of the interaction of particles in ever more complex ways- but the particles still follow the SAME BASIC LAWS that have been in place since the beginning of time. The ideas of morality arose out of the same laws. EVERYTHING FOLLOWS THE SAME SET OF LAWS. Purpose is what we call a complex attraction/desire. Gravity and electromagnetism are what we call the simple attractions between particles.

A person is made up of a big old bunch O' particles all acting according to the laws of nature. The particles in the person do not disobey these laws of nature. Your brain, which is interpreting these written words, and formulating your response or reactions is obeying the laws of Nature write now.

Philosophical and Religious thought address the complex interactions of particles. Scientific thought addresses the basic laws that every particle obeys. Because philosophical and religious thoughts do not address morality or purpose from the bottom UP (from the laws that define the way every particle behaves), but instead from the top DOWN - they address issues with sweeping generalities that they claim are the exact true and moral way of acting.

Philosophy describes my dreams/ desires as a complex being. Science describes the root of all my desires, the defining characteristics of all of our lives.

Gotta go now, gotta clean the lab... hehe.. L8r!

02-01-2001, 01:38 PM

Your observation of religious groups is quite accurate. I and many other Christians on an individual level do not mind if our theology is smashed and replaced by better.

Nevertheless, if the particles in our brains obey the strict laws of physics always, then those chemical recations are predictable and set. This eliminates the notion of choice and will. What gives us the capacity to fight against nature or go with it? I contend that we are more than the tangible. There is a metaphysical to humanity as evidenced by our ability to choose. If we are more than meets the eye (or microscope), why is it a far stretch to imagine a relm of spirits and even God?

02-02-2001, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Josephus:
Nevertheless, if the particles in our brains obey the strict laws of physics always, then those chemical recations are predictable and set. This eliminates the notion of choice and will. What gives us the capacity to fight against nature or go with it? I contend that we are more than the tangible. There is a metaphysical to humanity as evidenced by our ability to choose. If we are more than meets the eye (or microscope), why is it a far stretch to imagine a relm of spirits and even God?

Those same chemical reactions determine all of our behaviors. The fact that you have desires to "go against nature" or "go with nature" are part of those chemical reactions. You are always going with nature. You are part of nature.

The reason you can experience nature is because you are part of it. All of your experiences are due to nature, even religious experiences. A schizophrenic who sees God and speaks to God does not have a less valid opinion than you do, they just see things differently because they are made differently: their brain is wired differently than yours because of environment (I put genetics in with environment because it is part of your environment). You ability to learn is determined by how much you (your brain) changes/adapts in response to all stimuli (including internal stimuli- your brain never stops tickin' until you are dead).

The balance between all stimuli determines every response you make. You do not have free will- you do things based upon what you have experienced in the past (internal stimuli that determine the YOU (genetics included)) and the current stimuli you are receiving now. You are going to make a decision based upon all of these stimuli that might involve replying to this letter. I never go against God- I can't, and if I wanted too, it is because of all that I have experienced; therefore I am not going against God. There is no separation between flesh and spirit. A magnetic field is intact up until the magnet is destroyed. You brain "field" is intact up until your brain is destroyed. Flesh is the spirit, spirit is the flesh, they cannot, and do not exist without each other. They are 1 and the same- eternal.

02-02-2001, 11:10 PM

Then why did we fight wars for something that does not exist, freedom. Your denial of will is quite bold.

02-06-2001, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Josephus:
Then why did we fight wars for something that does not exist, freedom. Your denial of will is quite bold.

All men are free to act according to the laws of the universe. Freedom refers to the ability to pursue your dreams and desires, even if freedom from desire is your desire

. War is a natural state: when there is an imbalance in nature- lightning strikes. Electricity finally gains the strength to travel with freedom. We cannot predict where lightning will strike; we just have knowledge of how the system works.

If there were a way for the storm system to gradually dissipate its energy, we would not have lightning. Humanities complex desires behave the same way as a storm system. There are many energy/material imbalances within your brain right now- these imbalances form the basis of your thought. The imbalances flow upon and are part of your physical neural network- the constant change of balance is your thoughts.

Constant input of sensation in addition to internal reflection are the causes/consequences of this imbalance- the constant effort to right the imbalance is the physical nature of the universe.

I do not deny will; I deny will's freedom for it is bound by itself. I deny anyone�s freedom from the will (imbalance) that they are part of. I deny freedom from the natural law of desire- desire for achievement of balance. All desire has one root; all will is towards fulfillment of that one desire- balance. Your brain has imbalances that are your thoughts and actions.

L8r, Im tired...

02-06-2001, 06:28 PM

And, where does this freedom (of the lightning that you mentioned for example) come from? It is not from chance, for someone who believes strictly in the laws of physics says that everything has an equal and opposite reaction, hence nothing is from chance. Laws of nature do not bestow freedom to the physical world, they determine its every move. Just because we do not have the precision to predict a lightning bolt's path, doesn't mean it isn't predictable. This is the same with the flow of the storm in our brain.

Perhaps someone knows about chaos theory and how it might support Kharakov. If I'm not mistaken, it is the belief that given the exact same set of circumstances, multiple outcomes are possible.

I don't know how you could believe strictly in the physical world and yet assert that nature has freedom. Is there any such thing as randomness at all?

If our brain is made of the same stuff that makes up other matter, it follows the same rules. If our brains are built on a foundation of chemical reaction, than every larger structure built from it also obeys the same principles. That is to say our consciousness, our intelligence, our history and development.

If we are purely matter, does nature have a mind? It proceeds, non-living matter lives. For our minds' are made up of non-living matter. I know that it is debated in psychology whether our minds exist independent of our bodies. If anyone has good info please share. Furthermore, how does non-living matter produce intelligence?

Therefore, since we do not even know how to define scientifically what the substance of life is (other than descriptions of its external characteristics), in light of our ignorance on ourselves and how life works, we must entertain the possibility of something other than ourselves. It really is amazing how like children we are who think we are self made and self-sufficient and the center of the universe with nothing else existing besides us.

02-07-2001, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Josephus:
Perhaps someone knows about chaos theory and how it might support Kharakov. If I'm not mistaken, it is the belief that given the exact same set of circumstances, multiple outcomes are possible.

We can never replicate the exact circumstances- that is why there is apparent chaos. Some atom, molecule, etc. has moved- even some asteroid in the asteroid belt moving and inch changes the circumstances under which the experiment is conducted. This follows the statement that everything obeys a strict set of physical laws.

Fractals are generated using specific algorithms. After a certain number of iterations of the formula, some fractals change into apparent chaos- although they follow an exact mathematical formula for generation. The same is true with us- the particles within us follow exact physical laws that determine everything about us.

Quote:

If we are purely matter, does nature have a mind? It proceeds, non-living matter lives. For our minds' are made up of non-living matter. I know that it is debated in psychology whether our minds exist independent of our bodies. If anyone has good info please share. Furthermore, how does non-living matter produce intelligence?

Our actions are based upon the actions of "non-living" matter- our brains act according to the laws of nature- that is why brain damage changes the personality of the injured. To say that matter is non-living is incorrect- it follows strict laws of behavior- just as we do (and our brains). Every chemical forms under strict conditions- look at our cells and how they produce proteins, but these cells obey the laws of nature just as all other matter does. Life is the energetic complex motion of matter- which all matter engages in to various degrees of complexity and energy. It is as natural for us to be here discussing life as it is for a planet to revolve around the sun.

Does our complexity separate us from the fundamental laws that drive nature? I believe the laws of matter are written in stone

. Our thoughts are the whole field pattern of our brain at any one second- one neuron firing is not the sum of any one experience- it is the natural coordination of neurons according to physical laws that determines the pattern of each of our thoughts. Drugs, damage, any physical change to the brain results in new/different patterns of thought (or just unconsciousness- the total disruption of the neural field), because our brains function according to physical law. When we "learn" something, we alter the physical structure of our brain to replicate the pattern of thought again at a later time, this is how experiences are stored- this is also why (physical) brain damage can have an effect upon an individuals memory.

Quote:

I don't know how you could believe strictly in the physical world and yet assert that nature has freedom. Is there any such thing as randomness at all?

A computer can generate a pseudorandom string of numbers based upon static electricity/ keyboard inputs over the last few hours/ the date and time/ scanning a sector of the hard disk that is written often (pagefile.sys) and combining the results. While it appears that the numbers were randomly generated if you look at the list, and you probably would not get an exact replication of the list ever- unless the exact conditions that created the list in the first place were replicated (impossible- except with instruments that allow a margin of error- which are obviously not exact).

Quote:

Therefore, since we do not even know how to define scientifically what the substance of life is (other than descriptions of its external characteristics), in light of our ignorance on ourselves and how life works, we must entertain the possibility of something other than ourselves. It really is amazing how like children we are who think we are self made and self-sufficient and the center of the universe with nothing else existing besides us.

Since the concept of "other than ourselves" comes from the recognition of the self as a unit that is influenced by exposure to material/self other than ourselves - it is sufficient to recognize that we are made up of what we are (matter) and follow the laws of that which makes us up (matter obeys physical laws). Separating life itself into internal/external is wrong as well- the characteristics which we call life are present in all interactions of matter. The ability to group particles (or thoughts) into objects (or categories) (planet / person / rock / crystal / vegetable / smiley face

) is natural as well- for is not gravitational field felt as the total force of a group of particles? Does each particle follow its own path, or is the particle influenced by all other particles / groups of particles according to set laws? Do you orbit the sun? Are you influenced by the suns gravitational field? Are you influenced by the milky ways gravitational field? Internal/external are words we use to describe physical groupings (physical groupings extend to thoughts, since thoughts are the grouping of neural impulses- and the only way to compare thoughts is internal/external- part of a group, outside of a group).

The fact that we attempt to describe things with language is part of our interaction with particles/groups. Language/science/knowledge are reflections of mankind�s sensitivity to particles/groups of particles. If life (the universe) did not obey natural laws there would be no patterns, and no language (pattern) to compare patterns (thought).

The physical laws that bind us are the same laws that create us, and drive our every action/thought.

L8r gotta go.

02-14-2001, 08:36 PM

Very nicely presented, I must say, and I agree with most everything.

Yet, I fail to see how you addressed our apparant ability to choose. Is it merely a false perception we have of ourselves?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-01-2001, 01:38 PM	#24
Guest Posts: n/a	Your observation of religious groups is quite accurate. I and many other Christians on an individual level do not mind if our theology is smashed and replaced by better. Nevertheless, if the particles in our brains obey the strict laws of physics always, then those chemical recations are predictable and set. This eliminates the notion of choice and will. What gives us the capacity to fight against nature or go with it? I contend that we are more than the tangible. There is a metaphysical to humanity as evidenced by our ability to choose. If we are more than meets the eye (or microscope), why is it a far stretch to imagine a relm of spirits and even God?

02-02-2001, 11:10 PM	#26
Guest Posts: n/a	Then why did we fight wars for something that does not exist, freedom. Your denial of will is quite bold.

02-06-2001, 06:28 PM	#28
Guest Posts: n/a	And, where does this freedom (of the lightning that you mentioned for example) come from? It is not from chance, for someone who believes strictly in the laws of physics says that everything has an equal and opposite reaction, hence nothing is from chance. Laws of nature do not bestow freedom to the physical world, they determine its every move. Just because we do not have the precision to predict a lightning bolt's path, doesn't mean it isn't predictable. This is the same with the flow of the storm in our brain. Perhaps someone knows about chaos theory and how it might support Kharakov. If I'm not mistaken, it is the belief that given the exact same set of circumstances, multiple outcomes are possible. I don't know how you could believe strictly in the physical world and yet assert that nature has freedom. Is there any such thing as randomness at all? If our brain is made of the same stuff that makes up other matter, it follows the same rules. If our brains are built on a foundation of chemical reaction, than every larger structure built from it also obeys the same principles. That is to say our consciousness, our intelligence, our history and development. If we are purely matter, does nature have a mind? It proceeds, non-living matter lives. For our minds' are made up of non-living matter. I know that it is debated in psychology whether our minds exist independent of our bodies. If anyone has good info please share. Furthermore, how does non-living matter produce intelligence? Therefore, since we do not even know how to define scientifically what the substance of life is (other than descriptions of its external characteristics), in light of our ignorance on ourselves and how life works, we must entertain the possibility of something other than ourselves. It really is amazing how like children we are who think we are self made and self-sufficient and the center of the universe with nothing else existing besides us.

02-14-2001, 08:36 PM	#30
Guest Posts: n/a	Very nicely presented, I must say, and I agree with most everything. Yet, I fail to see how you addressed our apparant ability to choose. Is it merely a false perception we have of ourselves?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.