Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of ParaclitosLogos

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ParaclitosLogos

4891
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Need Help With Resurrection Question
« on: March 01, 2015, 01:59:19 pm »
I appreciate your responses, but to be the devil's advocate I'll go to the heart of why I am still uncertain of the whole "too vague" thing.

After it clearly talks about suffering (and dying), Isaiah 53:10 goes on to say...

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

If Jesus' disciples did identify Jesus with the preceding verses, what would they made of this? (Especially the whole "prolong his days" part).

That he was not the Messiah ? After all he was killed by tree hanging, his days were not prolonged, nor he had any offspring, that we know of.

No sense in beating a death horse, right?

4892
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Need Help With Resurrection Question
« on: March 01, 2015, 01:57:44 pm »
bdsimon, I hope ontologicalme comes back, but every now and then he comes in randomly to post once, or twice, and then goes to oblivion again. I hope this time is different, but I doubt.

Thanks. I doubt it too, but we will see.

4893
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Need Help With Resurrection Question
« on: March 01, 2015, 01:57:02 pm »
I think it rather unlikely. The OT references are too vague to be interpreted so without another source for the belief of resurrection.

I would say the most likely source for the belief in resurrection is Jesus, of course. He prophesied his death and resurrection after three days.

In other words, Jesus prophesied His death and Resurrection after His death and Resurrection?
Or am I interpreting you wrong?

Thanks.

4894
This isn't supposed to be about the definition of atheism, it is about belief. It seems important to me as it would be a mistake to disbelieve something irrationally just as it could be a mistake to believe something irrationally.

Under what conditions should you disbelieve something and what conditions you should withhold judgment? It isn't clear that just because you don't personally see evidence for something that you should disbelieve that thing. For example, I shouldn't disbelieve that there is intelligent life outside of our planet just because I haven't seen evidence of intelligent life. I should withhold judgment.

Well, some argue that certain believes are properly basic, and these can be believed rationally, even though they are defeasible, for example the believe that the world was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance and memories of being much older.

Other believes can be included in one´s noetic structure, some argue, through deductive , inductive arguments, and inferences to the best explanation.

For instance, some argue that in the case of deductive valid argumentation, one can believe the conclusion of an argument, given that one finds the premises plausible, under a certain level of justificatory evidence or reasons.


4895
Nice example.

We only have your testimony, no one else testifies to this, and, the evidence offered already has a very plausible and accepted explanation. Not to mention the implausibility of the idea that 26 light years from now aliens, would care about any specific human receiving alimony for no service at all, when they can pay the 26 million dollars in the spot if the do arrive, directly. No million dollars from my government, sorry.

I have not made myself clear: the millions from the governments are not for me. They are to establish the infrastructure for the time when the Lybbles come and begin to rule the Earth. That they will come and will rule the Earth is a given, the question is only how angry they will be when the preparations are not done. And it's a million per government per month, we are not talking petty change here.

And psychological counterexplanations, as any theist will tell you, only go so far. We have perfect psychological explanations for establishment of religions as well, moreover, everyone believes that at least most of of them are false and man-made. So yes, the evidence is plausible and accepted.

As I said.

We only have your testimony, no one else testifies to this, and, the evidence offered already has a very plausible and accepted explanation.  (This is good enough reason to reject the idea)

The following is merely additional, and comes after establishing the hypothesis is a bad one, by the reasons given above:

It is a fact that if you get your way ( ".all gove..rnments on the Earth should change the laws such that I am paid")
you re getting paid , given that your evidence is bad.

Again, additionally:
Not to mention the implausibility of the idea that 26 light years from now aliens, would care about any specific human receiving alimony for no service at all, and even more, when they can recieve the  26 million dollars in the spot when/if they do arrive, directly.

This is not a psychological analysis, it is a contextual inference, it is absolutely implausible, that our money is of any value to them.

Still, No million dollars from my government, sorry.

4896
Under what conditions should you disbelieve something and what conditions you should withhold judgment? It isn't clear that just because you don't personally see evidence for something that you should disbelieve that thing. For example, I shouldn't disbelieve that there is intelligent life outside of our planet just because I haven't seen evidence of intelligent life. I should withhold judgment.

Let us try this out:

Suppose that I tell you that I am in one-way telepathic contact with a powerful alien race, the Lybbles from Alpha Centauri. They tell me that all governments on the Earth should change the laws such that I am paid, as temporary representative of Lybbles on Earth, one million dollars per month from each to establish the necessary infrastructure when the Lybbles come to rule the Earth. If the demands are not met, the Lybbles will destroy half of the mankind when they arrive, which should be around twenty six years from now. As an evidence of the truth of my claim I point out several star explosions registered lately by astronomers, previously thought to be natural nova explosions.

What would you say to that?

Nice example.

We only have your testimony, no one else testifies to this, and, the evidence offered already has a very plausible and accepted explanation. Not to mention the implausibility of the idea that 26 light years from now aliens, would care about any specific human receiving alimony for no service at all, when they can pay the 26 million dollars in the spot if the do arrive, directly. No million dollars from my government, sorry.


4897
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: William Lane Craig vs Sir Roger Penrose
« on: March 01, 2015, 07:48:27 am »
I'm amazed that so many pages have been gone through without any substantiated accusations.  Surely might understand that both he, and we, have seen too many baseless accusation leveled against public figures that have opposing world-views from their accusers who have nothing to lose in leveling such accusations. . . so our skepticism is warranted.

How have they not been substantiated? Penrose in the video clearly says that WLC has got it wrong.

Hi redtilt.

My impression is that, Dr. Craig thinks it is comparable to the Aguirre-Gratton, and, Carroll-chen models, in the very specific sense (and none other) that, they can all be charged with each of their expanding volumes or phases not being in the past nor the future of any of the others.

the 1st two because of the reversal of the arrow of time, and, in the case of the CCC, because, each eon goes a sort of no clock phase, that is in my opinion what Dr. Craig meant when making (a very broad and admittedly unclear) analogy.


I guess that might be an objection that can be level, with more explanation (just maybe).

I´d prefer to argue that:

As far as I know, the motivating data( the anomalous concentric rings on the CMB data) have been argued (I think generally accepted, successfully) are consistent with current theory, and, not evidence of a pre-inflation era (as CCC argues) .I don´t remember where I read this, I would have to search for the sources, but, informally, I would suggest, that is why CCC does not appear to be such a big player, at least, that is my impression.

Also, Penrose´s model, if I remember correctly, depends on information being lost into black holes, a position that is almost unanimously rejected, now a days (maybe everyone is wrong, but, layman as us, should not have much reason to think Penrose is correct on this, I´d say).


On Meissner Paper, the one I checked does not have comparative statistics

 http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5737   

 "The quantitative comparison between the real and simulated maps is deferred to the future publication ."

Is that acceptable? it seems to me , it isn´t much of anything, that way, right?

I don´t think the model is not in the area, but, it needs much work (as Penrose admits ), and corroboration.

On a side note, and, I don´t mean anything much by it, at least some, if not all of the participtans in  the Jesus seminar believe something like " the risen Christ is simply a metaphor in Christianity for renewal and is not meant to be taken literally." , as far as I understand.

4898
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Need Help With Resurrection Question
« on: March 01, 2015, 05:02:35 am »
As far as I know, there is no authoritative evidence nor testimony of any kind, to the effect of Jesus disciples going through a  process of transformation,  from non corporeal hallucinatory appearances  to the false conclusion of Jesus corporeal and definite resurrection, based on  theological, syncretic, contextual grounds or some kind of mixture.

Such explanations are akin to offer a hypothesis to explain not X about an event where all authoritative sources testify that X, on the grounds that X is not possible, even if there is no authoritative evidence for not X.

The purported historical facts, answerable to the historical criteria:

After Jesus Crucifixion
1. Burial by Joseph of Arimathea
2. Empty tomb
3. After death Appearances to Jesus disciples,  outsiders and detractors (like James the brother of Jesus and Paul)
4. Early Jesus disciples believe and proclamation of Jesus ultimate resurrection.


Seems to me, that the OP´s hypothesis is rather a gratuitous explanation, which, simply begs the question.



 

Pages : 1 ... 325 326 [327]