Jump to content

Creator God--Plausibility and Substance


B. John Jones
 Share

Recommended Posts

My own faith in him is subject to my own estimation, making the evidence (his broken and redeemed body) subject to my own reason.

 

It was proven to the crowds, to the public, almost (sic) 2000 years ago. You and I are accountable to the human account of these events.

I am reluctant to intervene in these conversations, but I have a sneaking feeling that these two posts refer to one and the same alleged "body of evidence". Can you perhaps explain what exactly were you referring to (just so that we are all on the same page), why you (and other Christians) perceive it as reliable evidence/proof and why do you reckon that other believers (of different faiths) and non-believers do not see it similarly?

Edited by Memammal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Mod notation: this is in answer to Memammal's question. I'm attempting to answer him precisely, not preaching.]

 

Since you ask, I mean the body of Jesus of Nazareth, struck and crucified; raised physically and having appeared alive to hundreds of his closest friends, as promised throughout his ministry and from the dawn of time. He himself had said before his arrest that his words are his very life that proceed from God his Father. His closest follower, John the apostle, writes long after, that God's Word became flesh. So it's his Word, living and being in people who are of faith. So the entire body of evidence today is the written and spoken testimony of the Bible and of the church.

 

[edited: "and spoken" was omitted initially by mistake]

 

There is no "similarly." 90% of Muslims believe Jesus never died, despite what the Quran says, both testimonies being contrary to the Bible, not to mention each other. Traditional Asian religions range from meditation precluding the notion of a personal god or God, to millions of impersonal or personal "gods," every one of them completely contrary to Biblical faith. Even when they acknowledge the being Jesus, they don't know him through faith, or worship him as the living God. Mormon religion, Jehovah's Witness religion, Catholicism, animism, astrology, occult, you name it, nothing is consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Note to mods: I realize the risk I'm taking here. But I am answering the question, and it does pertain directly to the thread. I am not violating anything here.]

Edited by B. John Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you ask, I mean the body of Jesus of Nazareth, struck and crucified; raised physically and having appeared alive to hundreds of his closest friends...

You were referring to evidence or proof though...you also raised the matter of objectivity...what objective proof do you have for the above claim apart from that which is written in the NT. You must understand that there are quite a few events that were recorded in the NT (of course also in the OT) that seem very dubious and that deserve sceptical inquiry. In lieu of the many supernatural (read unlikely) events that were recorded in said canon of work, any rational thinking person would in fact have no choice but to question the authenticity or accuracy of these claims. It definitely does not help to argue that if one buys into Genesis 1:1, which in itself is a highly contentious claim, then one would understand and believe everything that follows.

 

He himself had said before his arrest that his words are his very life that proceed from God his Father. His closest follower, John the apostle, writes long after, that God's Word became flesh. So it's his Word, living and being in people who are of faith. So the entire body of evidence today is the written and spoken testimony of the Bible and of the church.

I am not quite following the logic of these claims. Everything (the entire body of evidence) seem to rest on subjective interpretations of selective extracts from selective scriptures. According to rabbinic tradition, all of the teachings found in the Torah, both written and oral, were given by God through Moses, a prophet, some of them at Mount Sinai and others at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings were written down by Moses, which resulted in the Torah we have today. According to a Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah). Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran). So it is obvious that the other two Abrahamic religions don't prescribe to your, or the Christian interpretation of what constitutes God's word, neither do other religions or areligious people.

 

There is no "similarly." 90% of Muslims believe Jesus never died, despite what the Quran says, both testimonies being contrary to the Bible, not to mention each other. Traditional Asian religions range from meditation precluding the notion of a personal god or God, to millions of impersonal or personal "gods," every one of them completely contrary to Biblical faith. Even when they acknowledge the being Jesus, they don't know him through faith, or worship him as the living God. Mormon religion, Jehovah's Witness religion, Catholicism, animism, astrology, occult, you name it, nothing is consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ditto for the Jews. So it goes without saying that all the other religions (and non-believers) do not perceive your alleged evidence to be very convincing. In fact, you go as far as to claim that only the protestant interpretation of the "gospel of Jesus Christ" is authentic (right?). Would you reckon that to be objective reasoning? Why should we take your word for it that the Christian protestants were the only religious denomination that got it right?

 

You failed to provide any measure of evidence, or any reason why your belief is superior to others. As such disarray's questions still seem valid and as yet unresolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, faith in peanut butter and jelly for lighting, would fail you, as, I would say, faith in Buddha would fail you. Faith in a generic brand of light bulb is fairly useful faith. Faith that the sun will rise and set is substantial faith. Faith in an eternal light by a certain offensive name is perfect faith. My own faith in him is subject to my own estimation, making the evidence (his broken and redeemed body) subject to my own reason.

Subject to your own reason? No, it can't be if you're arguing that it's not subjective.

 

If I were to subject my own reason to the Muslim religion or to science, then the evidence would have subjected me. I would not be studying or worshiping subjectively or objectively. I would have been subjected.

I'm guessing this is supposed to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This sounds like a logically devoid game of "Simon says".

 

As in, if you say "Pigs can fly" we can reject it as proven incorrect by data, but if you say "God/the Bible says that pigs can fly" we are expected to unquestionably accept it in the face of contradictory observation.

 

I for one find that a rather unsatisfactory position. It basically gives you a logical loophole to make any spurious claim you want to and demand it be valid.

 

 

You're out :P cuz Simon didn't say :P, let's play again, you're go...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science isn't elevated above nature. It is ruled by, limited by, and tested against nature. Science is subservient to and dependent upon nature.

 

 

That's the way it should be. But it hasn't been. Not modern science.

 

 

Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

 

The part I disagree with is where you say "Science is subservient to [and dependent upon] nature."

 

If that were the case, society's science-based inventions would be organic, contributing more than taking. As Jack Johnson so nobly sings, "They paved paradise . . . and put up a parking lot!"

Edited by B. John Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part I disagree with is where you say "Science is subservient to [and dependent upon] nature."

 

If that were the case, society's science-based inventions would be organic, contributing more than taking. As Jack Johnson so nobly sings, "They paved paradise . . . and put up a parking lot!"

 

 

Why must that be? Is there any science that violates the laws of nature?

 

(and Jack Johnson? Seriously? “Big Yellow Taxi” was written, composed and recorded by Joni Mitchell 5 years before Jack Johnson was born.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part I disagree with is where you say "Science is subservient to [and dependent upon] nature."

 

If that were the case, society's science-based inventions would be organic, contributing more than taking. As Jack Johnson so nobly sings, "They paved paradise . . . and put up a parking lot!"

 

Why would they be "more organic"?

And what does "organic" mean in this context?

And in what way does science take more than it contributes?

And what evidence do you have for this claim?

 

And what does the construction of parking facilities have to do with science? You seem to be confusing civil engineering and planning permissions with the scientific method.

(Apparently, someone thought the lyrics were, "They paid a pair of guys to put up a parking lot")

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that John Jones is making the common criticism of science and technology that it inevitably, or at least in practice, levels trees in the amazon and replaces forests with highways, pollutes our air and water, fills the earth with plastic, etc.

 

On the other hand, Swansont seems to be making the point that science deals with nature in a rigorous manner, and sees no need to introduce or examine supernatural factors or agents in its investigation of the world/universe.

 

The two trains of thought are not on the same page (if I can mix my metaphors).

 

I am reminded of Heidegger's efforts to have his cake and eat it in this regard. Writing in the Black Forest of Germany and feeling a sort of folk-love for German peasants who tilled the land, he openly decried the unnaturalness of modern technology and the way that science used, or rather, exploited and desecrated the environment (Germans were always big on the sacredness of German soil). Yet, on the other hand, he saw Germany/Nazis as being the vanguard of civilization, and praised its efforts to build superhighways, bridges, etc.

 

As a further aside, I find it interesting that all the while Hitler refused to encourage nuclear research as he saw anything that had to do with impractical science (e.g, quantum theory) as weird and degenerate (much like his attitude towards modern art). Had his attitude been different, history would not be the same.

 

In any case, I think that John Jones approach is an irrelevant "ad hominem," so to speak, where "science" is the 'person' who is being criticized as if science can't presume to know very much because it has done so much to harm the environment.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that John Jones is making the common criticism of science and technology that it inevitably, or at least in practice, levels trees in the amazon and replaces forests with highways, pollutes our air and water, fills the earth with plastic, etc.

 

On the other hand, Swansont seems to be making the point that science deals with nature in a rigorous manner, and sees no need to introduce or examine supernatural factors or agents in its investigation of the world/universe.

 

The two trains of thought are not on the same page (if I can mix my metaphors).

 

I am reminded of Heidegger's efforts to have his cake and eat it in this regard. Writing in the Black Forest of Germany, he openly decried the unnaturalness of modern technology and the way that science used, or rather, exploited and desecrated the environment (Germans were always big on the sacredness of German soil). Yet, on the other hand, he saw Germany/Nazis as being the vanguard of civilization, and praised its efforts to build superhighways, bridges, etc.

 

 

technology ≠ science

 

Science does not level the Amazon or build highways, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that John Jones is making the common criticism of science and technology that it inevitably, or at least in practice, levels trees in the amazon and replaces forests with highways, pollutes our air and water, fills the earth with plastic, etc.

 

Science doesn't do any of those things.

 

If you want to blame anything for that then you could start with capitalism, corruption, lack of education, bad governance, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange and Swansont: Yes, science is not technology. I think the real distinction here is really about the misuse of the technology that made use of science....an extreme example would be blaming the scientists who helped develop the atomic bomb. Indeed, blaming scientists is a little like blaming those who flew Enola Gay and dropped "LIttle Boy." (Indeed, the airmen were traumatized by their actions)....Don't shoot the messenger sort of thing.

 

Yes, some people unfairly blame science and scientists for the harm that has been done to the environment by such things as roads and factories and cars. (In part, people who criticize cars and roads somehow forget that it would be hard to keep millions of people alive and healthy in a small area as is done in modern cities...Just look at what the conditions in big cities such as London were like a couple hundred years ago when technology was much more primitive than it is today. Back then, people road defecating horses through the streets and threw their garbage and whatnot out second story windows!). As another example, some scientists speak out against the way that, for example, nuclear energy is being misused and mismanaged.

 

But yes, progress has been a mixed bag, and peripheral factors such as those listed by Strange are more relevant.

 

No need to criticize science or its methodology whatsoever.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a big distinction is between discovery and invention. Discovering that atoms can be used to make bombs, or that oil can be used as a fuel source, etc. is different to inventing a way to achieve those objectives. Critics of scientific progress seem to confuse the two and blame scientific discovery for bringing about bad things like nukes and pollution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Personally I believe that if God really exists then he must be a jerk of the highest kind.

 

 

 

 

 

But then again on second thought I don't believe that God is really out there somewhere and that's because I don't believe that he really exists.

 

If you look at the human condition on Planet Earth then you will see incredible suffering.

 

Therefore I think it's fair to say that it is a Machiavellian Universe out there who doesn't care about humanity at all or about our suffering.

Edited by seriously disabled
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.