Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity: My main argument, besides there being no evidence for the existence of a God is that the scenario and explanations you believers have for Gods purpose in creation and his motives are very weak when tested for rationality. I often find them irrational. I am asking you several questions, you have done a good job at attempting to answer some of them (though I find your approach apologetic) at the end of the day, when your "theory" leaves so many questions unanswered, it is a weak or invalid theory. So I hope I won't have any questions nagging me when you are done answering. And I hope I will have you to thank for that.

Based on my count, you asked me 53 questions and responded to me in 5 posts since our last exchange. Now you’re asking me to answer these questions. I don’t have time to answer 53 questions. Even if I did have the time, I wouldn’t do it because I think there would be 53 more questions waiting for me.

If you’d like to pick the 3 or 4 most important questions, then I will try to answer them. I don’t mean to be rude, but my time is limited.

Theli

Polycarp...

I guess, some other time maybe.

Halt!
There's no such thing as "totally free". Even as we exist now, our actions are largely influenced by our bodily needs/urges/limitations.

Now you are thinking very limited.
You don't think that we humans and our way of functioning/thinking is the only possible form of consciousness?

First. 100% freedom would require a mind without a body (to make the decitions for the mind) and no limitations whatsoever. Not even god is 100% free if you apply any attributes/limitations to him, such as "good".

Second. TO reffer to actions as either good or evil is to think black and white - 1/0.

That's mildly speaking.



Ok, so you don't condemn torture? God must love you for that. I hope you don't become a politician.

Then, how is hell so much different from earth?
Would I go to hell for running around killing people?
Would I suffer there?
Why do you call it hell?

Peter Kirby

Hello,

Yes, some of my beliefs about Christianity would change in this scenario. Assuming that everything said by Kephas checks out and that I could visit the empty tomb of Jesus, I would no longer have many historical reasons for disbelieving the resurrection of Jesus.

But the absence of historical reasons for disbelieving the resurrection of Jesus would not be enough to convert me back to a full-fledged Christian, which in my understanding implies certain things about the problem of evil, the problem of original sin, and other items that would conflict with philosophy or science as I understand it. So I would still be left with reasons for disbelieving Christianity.

And if all these reasons for disbelieving Christianity were removed, that would still not move me to convert. For that, I would need some positive persuasion that Christianity were true. I don't know what form that would take, but I suppose that God, if He exists, could work something out if it were important to Him.

best,
Peter Kirby

NOGO

Wow! I am not sure who is confused but let us keep it at that.
You talk about "dualism" which implies two states but actually there seems to be three.
1. The soul
2. The corruptible body
3. The incorruptible body

Paul says that those alive will go from 2 to 3 in an instant while the dead will rise incorruptible and join Jesus forever.
What you are saying is that before they rise their souls were already with Jesus.
So we will be in the Soul state from death till the end of the world. Correct?

For example the thief or Daniel are currently with Jesus in heaven as souls, will be raised incorruptible when Jesus returns and then will go back to heaven.
Is this your understanding of it ?

I am surprized that you say this. Does Matthew 24:30-31 describe an event different than Cor 15:52


It seems to me that Jesus gave the example. He stated beforehand that he would dies and remain in the earth for three days and three nights. He would then rise.

Was Jesus in the form of a soul during his stay in hades?

I hope that you at least understood my point about being earthbound. The end-of-the-world is not necessary if you believe in a heaven which is not the "sky" as you say. A heaven in the spiritual realm. If souls are already with Jesus after their death the end of the world and final judgements are unnecessary.

Cheers,

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

HRG

How could I say that he appeareed to me after his death ? If I assume that a postulated deity A is powerful enough to resurrect himself, I might as well assume that another postulated deity B is powerful enough to create the photon pattern of a resurrected A, although such a resurrection never happened.

The connex between our perceptions and reality is based on naturalism; assuming a particular supernatural explanation breaks this connection. If my perceptions were consistent with a resurrected A, I could only conclude that something supernatural must have happened, but I could never conclude that A was actually resurrected.

Regards,
HRG.

Skeptical

This is a very large can of worms to open, but my opinion is that even an omniscient being can only know what can be known. I don't think random events can be known in advance, so I don't think even an omniscient being can know those events. While human actions generally aren't random, I can make them so by basing my actions on the outcome of random events. (a toss of a coin, for example) The only way around this problem for the belief that an omniscient being would know the outcome of these events IMO is to claim that there is no randomness in the universe. While this may be true, it certainly doesn't look that way.

Setting aside this, I have never seen a satisfactory defense that shows how omniscience is compatible with free-will. All of the explanations basically reduce free-will to something meaningless. Again, this may be the way it is, but if so I really don't see the point of existing in the first place. (from the point of view of a theist who believes in omniscience)


<strong> First, the idea of "caring" implies emotion, so your statement basically says if the being has emotion why is it hard to think it has emotion.

Second, the reason I find it nonsensical is that its a self-evident thought exercise that any being with emotions _and_ unlimited power would be a power crazed lunatic. Imagine a human being suddenly given the power to do anything. Create anything, destroy anything or will anything whatsoever. Given no limits except those it is willing to impose on itself. You can argue all you want that such a being would be "good" or have only "good" emotions, but I find such arguments ridiculous. Inevitably, the mix of emotion and power would be catastrophic.

It also seems clear that such a view is pure and simple anthropomorphism. It's simply more comforting to believe in a "sky daddy" figure than in an entity that has no interest whatsoever in our existence. I don't remember what philosopher said it, but (roughly) "if horses could draw, their gods would look like horses". Well, humans can draw, and what do our gods look like?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby: Yes, some of my beliefs about Christianity would change in this scenario. Assuming that everything said by Kephas checks out and that I could visit the empty tomb of Jesus, I would no longer have many historical reasons for disbelieving the resurrection of Jesus.

Thanks for your reply. Right now it looks like you're alone in your admission. Why do you think no other skeptics have agreed with you?

Vorkosigan

Re-read Kirby's point carefully. In your own mind, italicize "historical reasons." Kirby might well be speaking in the narrowest of senses. Not having "historical reasons" is not the same as having no reason.

Vorkosigan

Marduk

"Is Christianity all about the evidence? "

No, it's about faith only. If every word of every Gospel were historically true you would still need faith to believe Jesus was who he said he was and not some sort of demon or alien or creature from another dimension comming to Earth to play jokes on the locals. Humans have no means or criteria to determine if a being with great inhuman like abilities is the Son of the Creator of the Universe or something else, it still requires faith and 'believing' what he said was true.

Peter Kirby

I can only speculate.

Perhaps part of the situation is that other skeptics have not based much of their disbelief on a historical investigation of the early Christian writings. This would only apply to some skeptics, of course, as many such as Richard Carrier have. But if disbelief is not in any way based on a historical argument to the effect that the historical Peter did not believe in an empty tomb of Jesus, then little would change if a person had the opportunity to interview Peter. The person would still be left with the problems of verifying extraordinary claims in a National Inquirer world and with analogies such as alien abduction claims that would make the testimony of a historical Peter nearly worthless by their lights.

Perhaps another part of the situation is that other skeptics have skipped over your question about whether any beliefs concerning Christianity would change in order to answer your question about whether one would go the whole hog and convert to Christianity. An interview with a historical Peter would not make me a Christian either, as I have other problems with Christian theology that would not be resolved with a knowledge of what Peter believed. I think that most skeptics in this thread have responded to the idea that they should convert merely with an understanding of what Peter was actually preaching.

By the way, I will note with Vorkosigan that I was noting historical reasons -- as I would still be left with broadly empirical or "philosophical" reasons -- for disbelieving the resurrection of Jesus. But the absense of reasons for disbelieving the resurrection does not translate into positive evidence for the resurrection. Peter's preaching would negate the argument that an empty-tomb-style-resurrection-belief was a development in the latter half of the first century. It would not be sufficient to establish the claim that a man who died had come back to life and ascended into heaven. Peter could be a witness, to be sure, but only one witness could not establish a merely normal fact even by ancient Jewish jurisprudence. If I was there on the day that Jesus was taken down from the cross and if I could interview over a hundred people that had seen Jesus alive after death in varying locations and times and circumstances, only then I think I would guess that a resurrection is a viable hypothesis.

However, the evidence available in reality today is substantially different.

best,
Peter Kirby