asaris

Also, the Mormons believe he went to North America to preach to the Native Americans.

The traditional Christian belief is that he ascended bodily into heaven. Exactly what that means, I don't really know, though there's a certain interpretation of the resurrection of the dead that might help.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

cooperricko

Thanks to Asaris and Willtravel for pointing out the apparent falsities and faults in my post. I was probably expecting some respect for my point of view - which is what I provided you in your postings.

Looking closer my view point was that "unless you were there - at that time " it would be virtually impossible for anyone to speak with any authority on the matter. This includes "facts" in historical writings. No matter how educated or learned one is, one can only make up their mind and develop a viewpoint using pre-programmed moral indicies, logical thought processes and community influence.

It is not logical for a dead person to arise.
It is not logical for the 6 odd billion on the planet to be descendant from Noah and the kids.
It is not logical for a group of 200 to walk across the Red Sea.
ETC ETC ETC

Once a person starts to free think it is amazing how many will arise from their myopic couches and decry the theory or thought.

By the way, who set the counter back to zero when Christ was born? My understanding ( please correct me if I am wrong ) is that the modern day year count started by a Ceasarian edict. I just don't comprehend that someone said " Oh!, Chist has just been born - let's make this year 1 !

asaris

I'm not sure when they set the clock to the alleged year of Christ's birth. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Romans; they, IIRC, used the founding of the empire, or perhaps the founding of Rome, to set the year.

What you have to understand is, while the things you mention are perhaps not logical (I'm not sure what that means in this context), they are not illogical either. That is to say that, while they are not the sorts of things that usually happen in this world, there's nothing about them that goes against the laws of logic.

I didn't mean to disrespect your point of view...no, wait, I did. There are a number of different sorts of posts on this messageboard. The ones that are intelligent, well thought out, and well argued, I respect, whether or not I agree with them. The banal I tend to ignore. The interesting but riddled with errors of fact and completely lacking any justification for their position, I give the respect they deserve. Your point of view might be well thought out, it might be deserving of respect, but your post wasn't.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

adysav

I'm not quite sure as to how you came to this conclusion.

For an object to be supported on the surface of a body of water the downward force of the object under gravity over the area touching the water must be less than the force provided by the surface tension of the liquid over this same area.

The force created by a human body (it's weight) is much greater than the surface tension of water. Therefore a man cannot walk on the surface of water.
Funny how that logic stuff actually makes sense.

This board seems to be full of people who would rather bend the world to fit their beliefs than change their beliefs to fit how the world actually works.

SecretMethod70

Actually, I thought it was the Romans who decided to use the year 0 when we use it. Of course, I don't really see why it matters when it happened, I don't think anyone actually claims that the people of Jesus' time are the ones responsible for it. Especially considering that, if they were, we now know that they were likely off by a few years because based on astronomical data it is likely that Jesus was born around the year 4 BC.

There is one major flaw in cooperricko's argument that "unless you were there" you should not believe something. I was not there when Einstein discovered relativity. I have not done the math to prove it myself. Yet, I believe in the relative (no pun intended) accuracy of his theory because other people whom I respect have told me that it makes sense. I don't really KNOW that it does, but I do know that if all humans ever did was go off their immediate knowledge we would get nowhere - we would constantly be reinventing the wheel.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

tecoyah

It would seem the point cooperricko is making has to do with scientific theory, and not logic per say. Granted there is much in the scriptures that is virtually impossible to explain scientifically, and in fact bypasses many scientific laws/theories. These are some of the same reasons I have placed said writtings into the "Myth" category. As for the "unless you were there" statement , I would agree for the most part, but many accept information on faith, and we must respect this descision.
Faith has its place in the human psyche, just as logic does. Is it not illogical to disreguard anothers faith, having never experienced it, as this would amount to a closed mind, and failure to evaluate all possibilities.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

cooperricko

Thanks to Adysav & Tecoyah for supporting at least some of my view point. I have resigned myself to the position that many - including Asaris - consider that my thoughts on this subject are flawed.

However, it is important to my grasp and understanding of life to find some reference point to go by. The accepted point of view is that Jesus Christ's birth is the beginning of the common era. As I previously posted, we would ( perhaps ) be more correct in calling the pre anno domoni period as "Before Caeser" as it appears as though the edict for reference "1" came from the Roman empire ( not 0 as this doesn't appear to exist in common idealogy - ie 3,2,1 BC to 1,2,3 etc AD bypassing the year zero ).

My ( albeit to some - misguided ) postings have been clouded by my personal need to understand where this nomenculture comes from. All the great dynasties of the Chinese, the Aztecs, the Egyptians etc etc were somehow re-referenced against a date of questionable deduction ( I've heard the redefintion of 4 AD in many theories ). all of a sudden their rich and colourful time line was distorted and rewritten by a group of self important senators in togas, who may have thought that their world was all encompassing. we know that the Chinese, for example, predate most of the OT writings.

So, in an atmosphere of " let's rewrite history to suit ourselves" why wouldn't certain facts and proofs be left out of certain stories.

A favourite of mine is the statement " Never let the truth get in the way of a good story". Perhaps it happened 2004 years ago. Who knows for absolute certain? Who was there to verbatim record the events. James didn't even get a guernsey for his version of the events.

The Koran entertains the idea of suicide bombers living in Paradise with 40 odd virgins!! Now there's a good theory. That is writen down somewhere - supposedly as truth and straight from the horse's mouth. Can we conduct a quick poll to ascertain the numbers on that little idea?

Faith may take you a long way - but fact, logic, universal law and scientific theory may be the only way to cut to the chase and get to the truth of the matter.

SecretMethod70

Unles you've read the Q'uran, I'd avoid making that assumption. Like any other piece of scripture, it can be abused and read in ways directly opposite of its intended purpose.

In general, I think it's far too easy for people to focus on the negative interpretations of scriptures and use that to denounce them. I can take almost any religion in the world and use a few interpretations of their sacred text to show that their religion is illogical, conflicting with what we know about the universe, and generally hateful and self-centered. Likewise, I can take almost any religion in the world and use a few interpretations of their sacred text to show that their religion is inclusive, logically fitting with our limited knowledge of existence and physics, and generally peaceful and caring. If you've already decided what you're looking for when you begin a search for truth, all you'll find is the truth that fits your own ideals.

Incidentally, I don't disagree that the Bible contains much myth. In fact, many theologians would agree (and many would disagree of course) with that, and I personally know many "faithful" people who would agree with that. That something is myth does not mean that it lacks truth.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

asaris

Adysav -- To clarify what Tecoyah said, the laws of nature are not necessary truths, so there is no contradiction entailed by the surface tension of water being other than it is, so there is no contradiction with someone walking on water.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Wyckd

First. God is pure and absolutely without sin. And the price of sin is death, there's no other way out of it. Jesus died for our sins, so we didn't have to. So anyone who believes in this and accepts it. Can receive what salvation offered to us by God through Jesus Christ's blood.

Second. There is God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit. God is absolutely pure and 100% without sin, there was no reason for him to die, and sins are only forgiven with blood, so God the son said I will go and die in for them. It's not just as simple as him dying for us. He, a God who has done nothing wrong in his presence here, was subject to what man suffers through. Sin, mockery, temptations and such. He overcame it all. He definitely didn't deserve any of it. But he wanted to. When Jesus passed away on the Cross, he descended into hell to and defeated death and Satan by resurrecting. To show that he is in fact God.

Third. Jesus returned to heaven to build a new Earth. And the second coming is. As I know it... when everyone on Earth hears the message that is written in the Bible, Jesus will return to end Earth. And the saved will be dwelling in the Kingdom which God is preparing for us. And the lost, those who heard the message of God and refused it, will be casted into Hell to suffer(which i understand it to be, just pain and sorrow for not being able to be with God) And i am sure, in Hell all hope and light is completely non existant. You will feel sad at its utmost worst.




In my OWN personal belief, I believe that God loves everyone too much to indeed cast them into Hell. But who knows, He sent Lucifer there, who was his favored Angel. Not my fault that dumb angel tried to overthrow God.

SecretMethod70

See, and here is my point where the questions in this thread go far beyond simple answer. I have read Christian theologies which disagree with some part of all three answers in the above post.

1) Some Christian theologies believe that one does not need to explicitly believe that "Jesus died for our sins, so we didn't have to."

2) I've read theology which disagrees with just about everything in the second answer given. That blood is not necessary to forgive sins, and that the mysticism of Jesus descending into Hell, etc is not necessarily the most likely occurance. Instead, I have also seen this question answered that (in a nutshell) fear, et al leads to sin, and by Jesus living a courageous life, disregarding the consequences of being a good person, even when that consequence was death, he led a life of example that fear should not dominate our actions, and not even fear of death, because goodness conquers all (as would be seen by the resurrection). Note, that's a HUGE simplification, but my point is just that it's a very different answer.

3) Again, I have read different theologies regarding this as well. That the Kingdom of God is not something that is "coming" and something that is necessarily a "place," but, rather, it is something that is in the conversion of one's own heart. That the Kingdom of God is something that is here and now in the hearts of all people who are creating change in the world, making it a better place. Something that is here already, provided by the freedom from fear and hate that Jesus gave through His perfect example of His life. (Again, a definite simplification)

Now, as far as I know, numbers 2 and 3 are not part of the official stance of any churches at this time, however they are theologies that have been put forth by current and past priests and done so apparently without consequence from the church.

Ultimately, I'm not looking to debate here which is correct, only my point is to get across that the discussion of the background of the Bible is intrinsic to the discussion of Jesus and "what happened" to Him, because there are as many answers to the question of "what happened" to Jesus as there are different understandings of the Bible's purpose and origins.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

adysav

I don't understand how you can so easily dismiss thousands of years of observation of the natural world, found to be consistent a million times over, yet you can take the words written in one book as being absolute and unwavering truth.
I would take what you read in the Bible with a pinch of salt, the only other place in the world where the laws of nature are broken is the fantasy section at the library.

asaris

First, you should note that I'm not trying to prove that Christ's miracles happened. Sure, I believe that they did, but that's not what I'm trying to prove. All I'm trying to prove is that they're not logically impossible.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that what you are arguing is that logical impossibility is co-extensive with natural impossibility; that is, that everything that is impossible according to the laws of nature is impossible according to the laws of logic, and vice versa. This seems to me to be an improbable position. Drawing a round square seems to be a different order of difficulty than walking on water. But even if you're right, there's still an epistemological problem.

We just aren't sure about what the laws of nature are; we think we have some idea, but of course, people have thought that in the past and been shown to be wrong. Some things that were impossible under Newtonian physics are possible under Einsteinian physics, and so it might be the case that some things impossible under Einsteinian physics turn out to be possible under some new physical theory. In fact, if I understand the theory (and, not being a physicist, I could be wrong), walking on water is in fact possible. Sure, it's very, very, very unlikely. But it's possible.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

adysav

I'm not entirely sure how you're going to do that, but it seems like you're going to just talk about how you're right and everyone else is wrong.

It's not a case of something being impossible, but that they are not covered by the physics involved. Yes one day we might enter into some Star Trek-like age where we tunnel through subspace to reach far parts of the galaxy. But we aren't talking about something on the fringes of science, yet to be described by the foremost minds of tomorrow.
We're talking about a man in sandals and a robe skipping across the surface of a lake. For thousands of years people have observed gravity and it has become somewhat taken for granted, rightly so I would say.

Perhaps there is some phenomenon regarding the contact of a particular type of sandal material and israeli water, but I would have thought someone would have caught onto this in the ensuing 2000 years.
By your reasoning it is possible that I could wake up tomorrow morning and be able to fly using my mind.

The whole process of logical reasoning breaks down when you say "well there might be something we can't possibly think of or discover", and assume that this has to be factored in to every argument. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of arguing because noone could ever be proved right or wrong.

Willravel

adysav: Are you looking for a right or wrong answer here? Really? A little food for thought...

Jesus, who walked the earth a long time ago (let's just assume this is true, for the sake of argument), had abilities that people then could not explain. Let's just say He was ahead of them on one level (science) or another (supernatural). Now we live in an age that has developed a basic knowledge that is fundamentally evolved from what they knew at the time when Jesus walked the earth. We are able to explain things that occoured in the bible with possible explainations that occour in nature. In the book of Genesis (1:3-2:3), there was light on the first day (big bang), land seperating from water (solid planets and stars seperating from gasses and open space), let the water be gathered (formation of the earth), let there be lights in the sky (formation of an atmosphere), let the water team with living creatures (first biological entities), let there be living creatures on the land (life evolves to be landworthy), and God created man (evolved from land creatures). There are parts of that we couldn't explain away 50 years ago. Does that make them not true?

Just because something hasen't been explained away by science does not make it invalid; whether science-based or religion-based. Logical reasoning does not 'break down' because of the possibility that the answer isn't here yet. Right now a lot of what's going on in quantum physics is borderline madness. We have answers that do not match logic. Does that make them untrue?
If you are coming at Christianity from a purely scientific standpoint (unbeliever, of sorts), you have to assume that the stories of Jesus aren't true. At least that is what you seem to believe. What if Jesus was a magician? I've seen David Blane lift off the ground, using a technique called kings rising (btw, this technique does not require anything that was not available to people 2000 years ago), and fool everyone into honestly believing that he lifted off the ground. What if Jesus was such a person? What if he decided that the best way to get his opinions on life out was to make people believe that he fit the prophesies? I'll bet I could, using only things that were available 2000 years ago, seem to walk on water. All it takes is an imagination.

All this whole discussion takes is a bit of immagination.

asaris

Adysav writes: Yes. Yes it is. It is logically possible that you could wake up tomorrow morning and be able to fly using your mind. That is to say, you cannot derive any contradiction from the statement "I can fly using my mind". Similarly, you cannot derive any contradiction from the statement "Jesus walked on water." The only way you could derive a contradiction is if you claimed that the laws of nature are necessary truths. But that's quite a claim, and certainly not one you've been making, much less arguing for.

Just a word on burden of proof: You are the one making a claim (said claim being "It is logically impossible that Jesus walked on water.") That being the case, the burden of proof is on you, and I've yet to see you try to derive a contradiction from that. And, again, that's just what a logical impossibility is -- a statement from which it is possible to derive a contradiction. Just so we're perfectly clear, a contradiction is a statement of the form "p and not-p".

But, upon re-reading your post (I should do that more often), it seems you're willing to give up the claim that it's illogical that Christ walked on water, but that, given the laws of nature, it couldn't have happened. Your support for this claim is that, in the 2000 years since, we haven't observed anyone else walking on water. But what about the Jews living at the time of Christ? Surely they hadn't seen anyone walk on water. Surely it was as unusual for them as it would be for us. And in any case, IF there is a God, and IF he visited the earth in the way the scripture claims, surely it's not unreasonable to think that he could break/bend the rules He Himself set into place. That is to say, given the other beliefs Christianity holds, it's not unreasonable for a Christian to believe in miracles.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

adysav

I think most of the people here are taking the view that their faith isn't based on a con artist. I'm not arguing against it as if he were a con artist or magician. Obviously he could trick people into thinking he could do some weird and wonderful shit, but the point is that most people believe that this stuff is genuine and actually happened without the aid of waterskis or wires.

Answers that do not match logic? The results are attained by a process of logical deduction and experimentation, how can they not match logic when they are a result of logic?
What you mean is that these things do not match your intuitive view of the world.

Who timed how long the first "day" took? With there being no Earth the concept of the "day" would not exist. I doubt anyone with any knowledge of astrophysics would agree the universe as we know it came into existence in a week.
Also, is it just me or do the next 3 events and their explanation not fit together in the slightest? How could anyone mistake land separating from water as the planets forming.

If in 2000 years time a person dug up a copy of a book or newspaper or poem from today, chances are they would be reading a biased and incomplete account with a distinct touch of sensationalism or political slant. How is it that noone can imagine this is what happened with the stories of the Bible, most of which were handed down orally for several generations before becoming a written history. Even after they were documented they were selectively edited.
If you take the Bible as truth you are just gullible.

Next week on TFP, "Is God sleeping on the job? A discussion on why there are no other records of him interacting with human kind for 2000 years".

adysav

This relies on the false premises:
1) A human being could fly.
2) There is some property of my mind that enables me to fly if I want to.

Which leads to the clearly false conclusion above.
Just because there is not contradiction in the conclusion does not mean that the logic used to create it is not flawed.

Someone beat me to this one... 2000 years ago, give or take a few, someone wrote that Jesus walked on water. I would imagine that the burden of proof is on that person, or the people defending the original claim.


Yes I understand logic, but saying that a statement is true unless you can derive a contradiction is incorrect. This is where that ugly thing called reality comes into play.
There is no contradiction in the phrase "tomorrow is Monday". That doesn't mean that tomorrow actually is Monday, as indeed it isn't. Since there is no contradiction however, you must believe that tomorrow is in fact Monday.

This is the meat of it. It is all a question of faith to Christians. People walking on water, parting water, talking serpents in a perfect garden etc.
If that's the case why do you try to defend some aspects of it in a scientific manner?
Don't let any observation of the real world compromise the integrity of your holy texts.

martinguerre

If you think Eden was about produce...

If you think the passover is about waterflow and armies...

If you think the calming of the storm is about weather patterns...

You may not have been reading for details, and not for the plot.

adysav

I don't read fiction.

SecretMethod70

This is ultimately the point. If you believe it is fiction that's, of course, perfectly fine. But, that means - and especially since you "don't read fiction" - you have no claim to any knowledge whatsoever about it. I don't go around telling people what the The Iliad means and what parts are historically accurate and what parts are less than literally true (after all, Homer was essentially the bible of Greek civilization). Why? Because I've never actually read the Iliad and even if I had, I didn't read it with any sort of understanding that a person who is reading it for other purposes might.

Similarly, being told one understanding does not mean that I now have THE understanding of it. In fact, as is the case with the bible, maybe there are many other, and some nearly completely opposite understandings. For example, I don't believe the bible is fiction, however I do believe that there were no such people as Adam and Eve, I don't believe the world was created in 7 days, I don't believe in Noah and the Ark, etc etc etc.

I have nothing wrong with people believing whatever they chose to believe. But to presuppose that you have an understanding of that which you admittedly don't believe in and pay little attention to, frankly, makes no sense.

Incidentally, there are those who would argue that Jesus may not have actually "walked on water" as well. And, personally, I don't really care if he physically walked on water or not, beyond an academic interest. Why? Because whether he physically walked on water or not has little, if anything at all, to do with the purpose and message of his life and the bible.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

cooperricko

It's refreshing to hear a Christian disclaim supposed events and writings that have formed the basis for the teachings of the Faith. Perhaps if more of the bretheren would read between the lines and not accept everything blindly, then there would be a more balanced perspective on life.

Zealots in any field ( and religion ) tend to raise the ire and passion of those that live to decry. Islam is the perfect example at the moment. The religion has so many positive aspects - but is brought into disrepute by splinter groups acting " on behalf of all Islam ". The teachings are good, the behaviour of 99.5 % is exemplary - but stupidity seems to accompany zealism by default.

tecoyah

I would agree 100% with the above. I have yet to meet a Muslim that was blatantly so, and certainly have had none attempt to convert me. Of the Buddhists I know....only one has attempted to "enlighten" me(and that at my request". Virtually half of the christians I know have proclaimed the error of my ways, or outright attempted to convert my faith to their own.
To clarify....I do know quite a few followers of Eastern religions, as well as western. My point is, I have personally drawn the conclusion, after moderate study of many paths, that the Christian/Catholic faith(s) are by far the most condescending to others, and therefor the paths I most avoid.
Each religion can be interpreted as something the others regard as Evil, and some within each will become violently fanatical.....welcome to human nature.
These are not the individuals to base an understanding of said religion on. That said there is a "General" attitude portrayed within the folds of each subset of a theology. Careful examination of the dogma present in the population of these groups is very revealing when it comes to the underlying reasons for fanatic beliefs. The underlying teachings in muslim faith are reletively benign, as are those of a Buddhist incling. Christian Teachings (at least from a couple of the bible versions) do tend to foster a certain disdain for those who are of a differing faith, this will inevitably lead to many people leaving the fold as they become more mature in social dealings.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

asaris

But, Adysav, I'm not claiming it's true. I'm claiming it's possible. Do you just not understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying "a statement is true if you can't derive a contradiction", I'm saying that a statement is possibly true if you can't derive a contradiction. Two worlds of difference there.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

adysav

A logical argument is built on premises which must be true before a conclusion can be reached. To reach a conclusion without valid premises leads to a completely pointless and nonsense conclusion.

Just making a statement like "All birds are green" is not using logic. It is just producing a conclusion out of thin air. Manipulating language to produce a valid sentence makes no difference to whether the actual meaning of that sentence has an real value or not.

"There are 3 planets in our solar system"
Is there a contradiction? No.
Is it possible? No.

adysav

I went to a Church of England school and religious education was a compulsory subject of mine for about 10 years. I have also read quite a large amount of it while arguing with people on forums

If you can see that someone could possibly have embellished the story ever so slightly in order to add some weight of authenticity about it's holy origins, then that's cool. What I take exception to is people who will defend this book letter by letter to the death.
I believe that a lot of the history is more or less correct, as much as you can expect from people with limited resources. I believe that there are good moral teachings in it, but also dubious or outright bad ones.
I do not claim to have a 'deep understanding' of the bible that you attribute to christians, and if it meant turning me into one of these screeching evangelical nutcases I'd rather not.

Do you not believe that his teachings would be more accepted if he could prove his status as the son of god? If he actually did walk on water, bending the universe to his will, would that not make the whole thing more credible and even end the debate about the existence of a god...
From that point of view it would be quite an important piece of human history.

There are plenty of people like yourself who will take the more... fanciful stories with a pinch of salt. Then there are people who are so unyielding in their belief that it would be funny were it not so serious. I know there are fanatics of all kinds out there, but it's the christian ones who seem to appear on the radar most frequently and appear to be the most outlandish.
With the exception, perhaps, of the Flat Earth Society.

asaris

Adysav. You must have slept through your logic course.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

adysav

You are the one who is trying to make it something it is not.
Read this

tspikes51

I will ask somebody who is learned in the scriptures more than I. Better yet, you could read the Bible yourself. I have an agnostic friend that read the whole thing, and I think that everybody should, just as I have read some of the Book of Mormon, Quaran, and am about to begin reading some Hindu sacred texts. It's also referenced a lot in literature, so again, a good read.

Actually, quite the opposite, although some Christians believe so. (By the way, I don't like the term "Christian." It just doesn't sit with me.) My agnostic friend could tell you how to be saved, for one. It is something that since the Pentecostal movement in the 1920's people have believed. The person being "saved" (another cliche word that I don't like) has to make the decision by him/herself. The only "saver" is God (Jesus was just the sacrifice. God the father forgives.) That's why I don't bother people with it like most Christians do. I just try to stay true and sincere to what I believe, and I let that be my only witness.

By the way, Hindus believe that the true Christian religion is the equivalent Hindu way of getting to eternity through love.

Some of you have been quick to judge. I challenge you to be more open-minded.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

tspikes51

I also think that the Bible, in its entirety, isn't exact truth.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

cooperricko

All that is required is for people to look at something and say " Is this is really possible "?

asaris

I assume you are speaking of this statement:
Whoever wrote this wasn't very clear on what he meant. There seem to be several statements within this paragraph.

1. Logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe.
This is vague, and I assume fleshed out by what follows.
2. If x is logically impossible, it must be impossible.
This is true. See what I wrote above, regarding the definition of 'logically impossible'.
3. X can be shown to be logically impossible, based on the science of the day.
This is false; this seems also to be the source of your confusion. There are, perhaps, some things which science does show to be logically impossible. One common example of this, used quite often inversely as an example of necessary truth, is "This is water and is not H2O". Philosophers don't really agree about whether or not these statements are logically impossible; it depends alot on what you think about the role of natural science and what it tells us. If you think 'water' means 'H2O', you'll accept the above statement as necessarily false. But if you think 'water' means 'clear, more or less tasteless liquid that, when clean, is good to drink', you won't. But:

1. It is dubious whether or not the 'laws of science' are necessary truths.
There is some disagreement about this, though, from what I've seen, the
position that the 'laws of science' are necessary truths is a minority opinion.
2. Even if the laws of science are necessary truths, empirical
observations made by science almost certainly are not. The fact that
our solar system has nine planets is not a necessary truth.

4. The paragraph goes on to say that people believed the following claim:
"Euclidean geometry is consistent -> Euclidean geometry is true" First of all, if this is meant as a justification for the rejection of the claim "p is naturally impossible -> p is logically impossible", it fails. "~(p -> q)" does not entail "~(~p -> ~q)"[1]. Moreover, no one ever claimed that Euclidean geometry is true because it is consistent. They claimed it was true because most of its premises (four if I remember the number correctly) had been proven, and the fifth seemed reasonable to believe (which is why we still teach Euclidean geometry in high school, and save Riemannian geometry for more advanced courses.)

I'm not really arguing philosophy here. I'm telling you what a word means. "Logically impossible" just means that a contradiction can be derived from it. It's not a philosophically controversial definition.

[1]Since ~(p->q) entails p&~q, and ~(~p->~q) entails p&q. In order to translate the argument, parse p as 'p is naturally impossible', q as 'p is logically impossible', and ~p is the same as 'p is naturally possible'. I take the statement about Euclidean geometry to be meant as a counterexample to the general principle at issue.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

adysav

1. Basically, your premises might not be entirely accurate, unknown to you at the time.

2. Isn't what he's actually saying. He means the opposite, ie If x is logically impossible it might still be possible due to 1.

3. Again this is because of 1. The whole water/H2O argument is absurd and just a case of a lack of proper definition, as shown by "if you think". Water is H2O, H2O is water, it's common name. Your average glass of water might not be pure H2O, but then it becomes a different argument. Fiddling the definitions doesn't change the reality of the matter.

4. This is where we start to notice there's only really one message in this paragraph, that stated in 1.

Yes. Your logic depends on the integrity of your premises however, and if they're wrong and you don't know it then your argument is still invalid.

Willravel

Mmmmmm..tastes like off topic...*drooling noise*

asaris

Again, you must have slept through your logic course. The truth or falsity of your premises has nothing to do with the validity of your argument -- the website you quoted me says just the same thing[1]. You clearly just don't understand what I'm saying about H2O and water -- it's definitely controversial whether or not water is defined as H2O, or, if not, why has there been so much ink spilled over Twin Earth. Your ?point #1, again, just fails to get it. First, sure my premises might be wrong, but that's just saying I might be wrong about something's being logically impossible, NOT that something's being logically impossible isn't what I've been saying it is. If x is logically impossible, it is logically impossible. It's just a misuse of logic of the grossest sort to say "Even if it's logically impossible it might be possible, b/c you might be wrong about it's being logically impossible." Of course. But in that case, it's not logically impossible. Second, proving something to be logically impossible doesn't require premises. '4 = 5' is logically impossible. I can prove it just using definitions of 4 and 5, and I doubt I'm mistaken about what 4 and 5 mean. If you're not understanding what I'm saying, then I'm happy to try and explain it a different way. But don't try and pretend you understand when it's obvious you don't.


[1]From "The Atheism Web":

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Willravel

Adysav, it's okay to be outgunned on a topic. No one knows everything. Asaris has more knowledge on this subject than you, and that's okay. It doesn't make you any less of a person. Asaris is delving into college level logic which a lot of people couldn't keep up with. We've all been wrong before. I'm sure there are times when Asaris is wrong, but (according to my decent knowledge of logic theory) this is not one of those times.
Asaris, this is like trying to explain calculus to an algebra 1 student. He's plenty smart and has the right intentions, but lacks the training necessary to keep up with you. Good points in the Sept 26 thread. I think after that, it's not worth it trying to explain.

adysav

Twin Earth is a hypothetical situation where the definitions are different.


I wasn't saying that the logical conclusion reached using your assumptions was logically flawed, but that it does not necessarily tally with real life.

"These are called premises, and are the assumptions the argument is built on;"
The fact that 4 and 5 are the numbers you think they are, are your assumptions and your premises. If I assume that 4 is actually what we call 5, then your logical argument would be true. Making a statement and then just claiming it to be true based on nothing is working against logic itself.

willravel, I will not be taking any shit from someone who lists "Intelectual Conversation" (sic) as one of his hobbies.

SecretMethod70

Continue to debate logic, do not continue to debate logic, whatever, BUT, debate it in another thread. This debate certainly does not relate to the thread topic any longer.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

adysav

We're just trying to find out how you argue the point when we have no tangible evidence that these events ever happened.
asaris is confident that his wordplay will somehow relieve the argument of a basis in the real world, and I disagree.

I'm quite happy to drop the logic argument, because I know that regardless of whether my argument follows standard logical procedure there is practically nothing he can do to prove his point aside from proving the existence of God.

tecoyah

It would seem this debate has become a loop of differing opinions, and a course in human nature. There is likely to be no closure found when discussing logical biblical interpretation. Scripture, and for that matter, Logic to a certain extent are based on personal understanding of percieved facts/ information. In my opinion, both posting parties have relayed truths and have a valid position. That is not to say either is correct, or wrong. This debate has occured in many forms, numerous times inside this community and I have yet to see resolution. Rather these discussions generally turn into flame fests due to frustration.

How about a fresh start:

Perhaps if we read the origional post, and go from there, we may get somewhere this time.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha