Skeptical

Ok, I was a little loose with my terms. I'll try and clarify. IF one grants that someone appears right in front of your eyes and can perform truly miraculous feats, not tricks, not deceptions but truly miraculous acts that are also moral acts such as growing limbs, healing true parapalegics, creating peace in war-torn countries, feeding the starving, etc, I don't think its too much of a jump to think this person _might_ have some knowledge worth sharing. (and yes granted, that's an awful lot of IF's) Great power doesn't necessarily mean they have great knowledge, but I think it would be foolish not to at least see what they had to say. This is all I meant by "follower", so perhaps it was bad terminology on my part.

Are you saying that you wouldn't at least be interested in talking to such a person?

NOGO

Polycarp,

I accept your example of the thief who was told that he would be in heaven "today".

Then he would be in heaven with an incorruptible body, correct? He would not need to go through end of the world judgement. His judgement was rendered by Jesus while he was on the cross. Correct?

Why then would this person "rise incorruptible" in order to join Jesus in the clouds at the end of the world? Is he not already with Jesus as Luke says or implies?

Rise and resurrection of the body suggests a life here on earth.

My point about the universe is this.
People in those days believed that the earth was flat and heaven (sky) was a dome with the stars being little lights attached to the inner surface.
There was, therefore, no other place to go.
There was earth, heaven above and sheol below.
The kingdom of God was on earth as the Our Father says. There was no other place in the universe for such a kingdom.

Consider 2 Peter which says that heaven and earth will be destroyed and replaced with a new heaven and a new earth. Earth will be destroyed because of the "ungodly men" but WHY is there a need for a new Heaven???

Daniel 12:13 and 1 Cor 15:52 show an earthbound conception of the universe where the dead lay dead until Jesus arrives and establishes the Kingdom of God here on earth.

Explain why Daniel is not told that he would be in heaven immediately. Rather he is told to wait dead until the end of the world before getting his reward.

If people are judged and go to heaven upon their deaths then why is there any need for the end-of-the-world" showdown?

Mt 24:30:31
"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

You have to admit this issue is not as clear as you may wish it to be.

Take care,
NOGO

brighid

Polycarp,

I think the Cocoa Pebbles analogy is poor. First of all, I know of the actual existence of Cocoa Pebbles. I do not know of the actual existence of Jesus. I can experience the factual nature of Cocoa Pebbles because I can go to the store and purchase them, taste them and examine their existence for myself. I can test said experience over and over again. You can test the existence of Cocoa Pebbles and so can any one else who wishes to try. We will all very likely conclude that the existence of Cocoa Pebbles is not in question and that Cocoa Pebbles do indeed exist. If I so desired I could ask for a sample of the contents of your stomach and test to see if you did indeed eat Cocoa Pebbles this morning and the evidence will determine if you did have Cocoa Pebbles and thereby determine the veracity of your claim.

And although I can neither prove, nor disprove the actual existence of Jesus I can come to plausible and educated conclusions based upon the evidence available to test that claim. I will grant that new evidence can and will be discovered to bolster one or both sides of claim, but I must proceed with making my conclusions based upon the available evidence, as well as the credibility of the evidence.

Thus far, I find little reason to doubt the scientific method and the conclusions drawn by science and I place confidence in science because it is falsifiable and changes if new evidence is shown to render past conclusions false, either in part or in it’s entirety. There are plenty of things scientists can conceive of that do not presently exist, but the beauty of science is that it will search for it until the questions it raises are answered. Often times science creates things that previously were unfathomable.

Religion, specifically the Judeo-Christian religions is an entirely different beast. Its very foundations are built on claims that cannot be replicated or tested. The evidence that is left is questionable and wrought with human error. The JC claim is not unique and as you agree people are likely to be Christian because of their environment, not because Christianity actual fulfills it’s claims of exclusive truth and divinity. You have admitted that attempting to analyze the historical texts available to us is a fruitless endeavor and cannot support the claims of either side. So, what are we left with? And if this claim of exclusive truth and salvation cannot be proven how does one go about differentiating it’s claims from the thousands of other God claims that exist and have existed? Doesn’t Christianity require that you believe in specific tenants such as that exclusive truth and the divine Oneness of its God that no other Gods exist, etc.? Why not believe in the claims of Islam, of that of the Aztec Gods, or the Egyptian ones? Why define oneself a Christian based upon these conclusions?

The desire for something to be, or the need for something to be real does not in fact make it real. It simply makes it desired and needed and therefore believable. If a God does exist what methods have you used to determine that this Entity is ACTUALLY the Christian God, not just what you believe it to be? Furthermore, if you can only believe (and not actually KNOW) this Entity either a)exists and b) is the indeed THEE Christian God and you admit that cannot actually be determined then why aren’t you an agnostic stating you just don’t KNOW?

Brighid

Skeptical

This is going pretty far afield from the original question of this thread, but I do have a few comments.

Just because you create a human (or "thinking" robot), that doesn't mean you know the best way for them to live, unless you define "best" in a very vague way. Parent's don't necessarily know what particular things may make their particular children happy, although they may know generally what makes children happy. This is a very important difference.

<strong> I typically ignore them and couldn't care less. I take no notice of them and don't think twice about them. I would also point out that I can see them and they can see me, so there's no reason to doubt each others existence.

<strong> Actually, that is not what most "unbelievers" want. They don't even believe in a creator, so to say they want anything from "it" makes no sense. You also seem to have a very non-traditional view of Hell which I find interesting, but that deserves another thread. As for Justice, rights, etc. your going into a whole area of morality that is also pretty far afield. I'll just say that if your under the impression that there are no moral systems or moral people who are not theists, your completely wrong. It's also a mistake to think that theists are necessarily more moral than non-theists as plenty of examples from history clearly illustrate.

<strong> My opinion is that the idea that "God" wants anything from humans is completely simplistic and extraordinarily vain. It posits a being with supreme power that has human emotions, which I find nonsensical and the ultimate act of anthropomorphism.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO: I accept your example of the thief who was told that he would be in heaven "today". Then he would be in heaven with an incorruptible body, correct? He would not need to go through end of the world judgement. His judgement was rendered by Jesus while he was on the cross. Correct? Why then would this person "rise incorruptible" in order to join Jesus in the clouds at the end of the world? Is he not already with Jesus as Luke says or implies? Rise and resurrection of the body suggests a life here on earth.

You’re forgetting that Christianity teaches “substance dualism”: humans have a body and a soul. This is why these different descriptions are confusing to you. When a person dies, their soul is “with Jesus” (to use the biblical term), but their body is not. They exist in a “disembodied” state. It is at the final resurrection of the dead that humans are re-united with their bodies, which are then glorified into a state of immortality. The soul of the “thief” would have been with Jesus that day, but not his body. The body is what “rises incorruptible” and is re-united with the soul. 1 Corinthians 15 is the passage to which you refer. Paul is arguing against people who claim there is no bodily resurrection. Going into the sky to meet Jesus indicates a non-earthly existence after the glorification of bodies.

Quote:

My point about the universe is this. People in those days believed that the earth was flat and heaven (sky) was a dome with the stars being little lights attached to the inner surface. There was, therefore, no other place to go. There was earth, heaven above and sheol below. The kingdom of God was on earth as the Our Father says. There was no other place in the universe for such a kingdom. Consider 2 Peter which says that heaven and earth will be destroyed and replaced with a new heaven and a new earth. Earth will be destroyed because of the "ungodly men" but WHY is there a need for a new Heaven???

Heavens can also simply mean skies. If you read 2 Peter 3:10-13 as part of the writer’s complete argument, it’s clear that he’s talking about the destruction of the physical universe. “Heavens and earth” = Universe. “Heaven” in this passage simply means “sky”, not some place of eternal existence for the righteous. The new heavens and new earth refer to the place in which believers dwell with God. Revelation 21 says something very similar.

Quote:

Daniel 12:13 and 1 Cor 15:52 show an earthbound conception of the universe where the dead lay dead until Jesus arrives and establishes the Kingdom of God here on earth. Explain why Daniel is not told that he would be in heaven immediately. Rather he is told to wait dead until the end of the world before getting his reward. If people are judged and go to heaven upon their deaths then why is there any need for the end-of-the-world" showdown? Mt 24:30:31 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. You have to admit this issue is not as clear as you may wish it to be.

Oh, I completely agree that this issue is not clear-cut. Christians disagree. Jews have disagreed for thousands of years. We can even see this in the New Testament’s description of Pharisees and Sadducees, and their differing views on resurrection. Matthew 24 could easily refer to those people alive on earth at the time of the event. I was simply giving you my view on the issue.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid: If I so desired I could ask for a sample of the contents of your stomach and test to see if you did indeed eat Cocoa Pebbles this morning and the evidence will determine if you did have Cocoa Pebbles and thereby determine the veracity of your claim.

The question in my analogy wasn’t whether Cocoa Pebbles exist. It was whether I had eaten them this morning. Would you seriously ask for a sample of my stomach’s contents before believing that I had actually eaten them? If so, then let’s adapt the analogy to say that I ate them one week ago.

Quote:

Thus far, I find little reason to doubt the scientific method and the conclusions drawn by science and I place confidence in science because it is falsifiable and changes if new evidence is shown to render past conclusions false, either in part or in it’s entirety. There are plenty of things scientists can conceive of that do not presently exist, but the beauty of science is that it will search for it until the questions it raises are answered. Often times science creates things that previously were unfathomable.

That’s all fine and dandy, but I’m trying to tell you that you believe other things that are not verifiable through the scientific method. I don’t think I’ve ever argued that the scientific method is a poor tool. It is great for testing things that are repeatable. Do you believe it is immoral to poke little babies with pins in order to derive pleasure for oneself? If so, then how would you prove this with the scientific method.

Quote:

Religion, specifically the Judeo-Christian religions is an entirely different beast. Its very foundations are built on claims that cannot be replicated or tested. The evidence that is left is questionable and wrought with human error. The JC claim is not unique and as you agree people are likely to be Christian because of their environment, not because Christianity actual fulfills it’s claims of exclusive truth and divinity. You have admitted that attempting to analyze the historical texts available to us is a fruitless endeavor and cannot support the claims of either side. So, what are we left with? And if this claim of exclusive truth and salvation cannot be proven how does one go about differentiating it’s claims from the thousands of other God claims that exist and have existed? Doesn’t Christianity require that you believe in specific tenants such as that exclusive truth and the divine Oneness of its God that no other Gods exist, etc.? Why not believe in the claims of Islam, of that of the Aztec Gods, or the Egyptian ones? Why define oneself a Christian based upon these conclusions?

Certain claims have a greater probability of being true. I happen to think Christianity’s claim is the one that is most likely to be true. It’s not as if I believe there is a 100% chance of Christianity being true, and a 0% chance for all other religious claims. Don’t ask me to quantify each religion (or non-religion), but I think you get the idea. We believe what we think is true, not what we KNOW is true. Since atheism or agnosticism can not be proven, do you cease to believe as you do? Of course not…

Quote:

The desire for something to be, or the need for something to be real does not in fact make it real. It simply makes it desired and needed and therefore believable. If a God does exist what methods have you used to determine that this Entity is ACTUALLY the Christian God, not just what you believe it to be? Furthermore, if you can only believe (and not actually KNOW) this Entity either a)exists and b) is the indeed THEE Christian God and you admit that cannot actually be determined then why aren’t you an agnostic stating you just don’t KNOW?

I am an agnostic in the sense that I don’t KNOW Christianity to be true in the same way that I know I exist. I believe it to be true based on a broad range of reasons ranging from the philosophical to experiential to historical, etc.

What methods do you use to determine what is right and wrong? You’re trying to apply the scientific method to something that can’t be tested in such a way.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptical: Just because you create a human (or "thinking" robot), that doesn't mean you know the best way for them to live, unless you define "best" in a very vague way. Parent's don't necessarily know what particular things may make their particular children happy, although they may know generally what makes children happy. This is a very important difference.

One problem with your analogy – parents aren’t omniscient (despite what they may think). By definition, an omniscient being would know the best way for its creation to live.

Quote:

Actually, that is not what most "unbelievers" want. They don't even believe in a creator, so to say they want anything from "it" makes no sense. You also seem to have a very non-traditional view of Hell which I find interesting, but that deserves another thread. As for Justice, rights, etc. your going into a whole area of morality that is also pretty far afield. I'll just say that if your under the impression that there are no moral systems or moral people who are not theists, your completely wrong. It's also a mistake to think that theists are necessarily more moral than non-theists as plenty of examples from history clearly illustrate.

My view of hell is actually quite traditional. Hell is separation from God. Fire and brimstone are simply analogies for a very bad place. I certainly didn’t mean to apply that non-theists are immoral. However, I will say that they have no shared ground for their morality. There is no basis for you to claim your morality is any better than another’s. I also agree that there have plenty of theists who have been far less moral than many non-theists.

Quote:

My opinion is that the idea that "God" wants anything from humans is completely simplistic and extraordinarily vain. It posits a being with supreme power that has human emotions, which I find nonsensical and the ultimate act of anthropomorphism.

Why is it nonsensical for a supreme being to have emotions? If a supreme being cared for its creation, it would seem to follow that it would be interested in the affairs of its creation.

brighid

You miss the important point in the evaluation of your claim of having eaten CP’s this morning – specifically the existence and testability of CP’s and therefore the feasibility of this part of your claim and the relationship it plays to the credibility of rest of it Because I KNOW, and can verify that Cocoa Pebbles exist I have no reason to doubt that at some point in time you could have eaten Cocoa Puffs. Therefore this lends credence to your claim of having eaten Cocoa Puffs. Now, as to the time you ate Cocoa Puffs IF it was this morning I could ask for a sample of the contents of your stomach to determine that and I COULD determine the veracity of your claim. I really wouldn’t ask for such a thing because … well it’s gross But I could test it and that is the point. Or perhaps you don’t brush your teeth after you eat your breakfast and I could simply get a test sample from the residue left on your molars.

Now, it would be more difficult for me to determine that you had eaten them last week but I can conclude that it is possible that you at Cocoa Pebbles at some point in time and unless you gave me reason, such a previous deception I would likely accept your claim based upon the reasonable nature of you having eaten Cocoa Pebbles. There is no outrageous claim being made. And it is possible, through the investigation of other evidence to determine the likelihood of your claim or to prove that you are simply being dishonest.

BUT if you had told me that last week you at Cocoa Pebbles and after eating the Cocoa Pebbles you were able to levitate off the ground, turn water into wine and suddenly had the ability to heal the sick and you raised your pet hamster from the dead after being buried for a week – well that is another story. I would believe that you at the Cocoa Pebbles but I would not believe that eating them caused you to have extra ordinary powers for a moment or even an extended period of time, and because of those extra ordinary claims I would require some serious proof. I would ask you to duplicate that, or had you been smart you could have turned on a video camera and documented your experience. Even then I would want the tape tested for tampering and an investigation into any possible trickery

So, although the Bible contains things that either did happen, or are plausible (and potentially verifiable) it’s claim in regard to the divine nature and extra ordinary nature of its specific deity (amongst the Pantheon of deities with similar and far greater abilities) are entirely different. Do you see the difference and how this must be applied to the all aspects of the Bible and Christology?

You have stated you have concluded that you have found Christianity to very likely be true. This would infer that you have investigated some other similar religious claims, or at least critically evaluated the evidence to come to this conclusion. Is that a proper assumption? If it is, how have you come to determine that the extra ordinary claims, necessary to believe in Christ and follow Christianity are plausible and, or true? What methodology did you use and can you use that same methodology to evaluate similar claims?

Brighid

Theli

Polycarp...

Interesting robot anology.
With you so far. Adding "dissapointed".

Why should this be an issue?
How does the robot express his appreciation?
By praying/worshiping?
If I created a robot race that I wanted to live independent (and I would), why would I desire their appreciation?
Am I so vain that I need to create robots that constantly thanks me for everything?

I don't see how appreciation for one's creator would make one "nicer". I have seen peoples devotion to their gods, and it's not pretty.

This explaination I agree with. My robots would have social needs, and therefore would act nice to each other. This is something I would want from my creation also.

This seems very oppressive to me. You make up rules for living beings (different from you) to live by. And if they don't, you torture them. You don't try to fix them.
Apperantly too proud of your own rules to let any "lesser being" question them.

Bigotry running high. Do all atheists preach to people how to live their lives?

Then you are not an intelligent creator. If you favor one robot for following your rules simply because their yours, then you obviously dispise your creation's independent thinking abilities.
Then you do want a robot that simply follows directions.
This is not what I would do as a creator.

Comparing your example with god, the atheist and hell. According to your belief (apperantly), I should scream "look at me!!!!", then grab a hammer and start beating people to death until I have got everyone's attention. And this doesn't even begin to reach the level of tortures in hell (according to many christians).
Sounds more like psycotic behavour to me.
Personally, I wouldn't care if someone was ignoring me.

Candy or spanking. Heaven or hell.

I haven't heard this description of hell before. What about the lake of fire, and all the pain and suffering in the bible?
From your definition of hell, I can't wait to go there.

So you are saying that all governments on earth are controlled by god?
That humans are incapable of creating, or living in a society?
That all people, deep inside are hatefull and malevolent, and should be oppressed?
Are you living inside a bouble?

That IS stroking his ego!
If god didn't have an ego, he wouldn't care if we acknowledged his act of creation or not. Just that we made life easier for others.

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: Deggial ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid: So, although the Bible contains things that either did happen, or are plausible (and potentially verifiable) it’s claim in regard to the divine nature and extra ordinary nature of its specific deity (amongst the Pantheon of deities with similar and far greater abilities) are entirely different. Do you see the difference and how this must be applied to the all aspects of the Bible and Christology?

Sure, I see the difference and I agree with you. See below.

Quote:

You have stated you have concluded that you have found Christianity to very likely be true. This would infer that you have investigated some other similar religious claims, or at least critically evaluated the evidence to come to this conclusion. Is that a proper assumption? If it is, how have you come to determine that the extra ordinary claims, necessary to believe in Christ and follow Christianity are plausible and, or true? What methodology did you use and can you use that same methodology to evaluate similar claims?

Here's my "logical" path to Christianity, it's sort of a funnel of thought. You have to remember that their are experiential factors at play in all this, too, but I leave those out for personal reasons.

Does some type of god exist? Probably.

What type of god exists? Monotheism seems more probable than other candidates.

Did this god reveal itself in some way? Probably.

I think Jesus lived a life that pointed people toward god, and that his message was ratified by the act of god raising him from the dead.

So that's the path I travelled. I wouldn't try to convince someone to believe in Christianity before they had a belief in at least some type of god. Anyone who has had a discussion in this forum knows what happens when that is attempted.