Sunday, May 12, 2024

God and Things we can see



Here is a recent statement on a blog by an atheist that well illustrates a major attitude of skepticism and new atheists that one encounters all over the net.

Roger Higman:

But God is a figment of your imagination. S/he can't be seen,heard or sensed in any way and all claims for what s/he thinks or says are just figments of the imagination of other people. At least science is based on things we can all see, hear, smell and taste.[1]


He must mean things like sub atomic strings, dark matter, quarks, nuetrinos,the big bang, and other things we clearly see and smell every day? As for figments of imagination I demonstrated in The Trace of God that 200 peer reviewed studies in journal articles demonstrate that mystical experince is good for you and that it is a valid experiece of something that is being experienced with the same qualia by people from all faiths all over the world.[2] Thus it seems God has more of a basis in empirical evidence than do subatomic particles.

Here is Part of an article I wrote for this blog back in 2020,"Can Science really Prove The Basis of Modern Physics?" (JULY 13, 2020):

Are there realms beyond the natural? Of course there can be no direct evidence, even a direct look at them would stand apart from our received version of reality and thus be suspect. The plaintive cry of the materialists that “there is no evidence for the supernatural” is fallacious to the core. How can there be evidence when any evidence that might be would automatically be suspect? Moreover, science itself gives us reason to think there might be. Quantum physics is about unseen realms, but they are the world of the extremely tiny. This is the fundamental basis of reality, what’s beneath or behind everything. They talk about “particles” but in reality they are not particles. They are not bits of stuff. They are not solid matter.[3] Treating particles as points is also problematic. This is where string theory comes in. This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than four.

So where are they then? One idea is that they are right under our noses, but compacted to the quantum scale so that they are imperceptible. "Hang on a minute", you might think,"How can you ever prove the existence of something that, by definition, is impossible to perceive?" It's a fair point, and there are scientists who criticize string theory for its weak predictive power and testability. Leaving that to one side, how can you conceptualize extra dimensions?[4] There is no direct evidence of these unseen realms and they may be unprovable. Why are they assumed with such confidence and yet reductionists make the opposite assumption about spiritual realms? It’s not because the quantum universe realms are tangible or solid or material they are not. Scientists can’t really describe what they are, except that they are mathematical. In fact why can’t they be the same realms?

Then there’s the concept of the multiverse. This is not subatomic in size but beyond our space/time continuum. These would be other universes perhaps like our own, certainly the size of our own, but beyond our realm of space/time. Some scientists accept the idea that the same rules would apply in all of these universes, but some don’t.

Beyond it [our cosmic visual horizon—42 billion light years] could be many—even infinitely many—domains much like the one we see. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. Nearly all cosmologists today (including me) accept this type of multiverse, which Max Tegmark calls “level 1.” Yet some go further. They suggest completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life. A chief proponent of this “level 2” multiverse is Alexander Vilenkin, who paints a dramatic picture of an infinite set of universes with an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people with your name who are reading this article.[5]
Well there are two important things to note here. First, that neither string theory nor multiverse may ever be proved empirically. There’s a professor at Columbia named Peter Woit who writes the blog Not Even Wrong dedicated to showing that string theory can’t be proved.[6] There is no proof for it or against it. It can’t be disproved so it can’t be proved either.[7] That means the idea will be around for a long time because without disproving it they can’t get rid of it. Yet without any means of disproving it, it can’t be deemed a scientific fact. Remember it’s not about proving things, it's about disproving them. Yet science is willing to consider their possibility and takes them quite seriously. There is no empirical evidence of these things. They posit the dimensions purely as a mathematical solution so the equations work not because they have any real evidence.[8]

We could make the argument that we have several possibilities for other worlds and those possibilities suggest more: we have the idea of being “outside time.” There’s no proof that this is a place one can actually go to, but the idea of it suggests the possibility, there’s the world of antimatter, there are worlds in string membranes, and there are other dimensions tucked away and folded into our own. In terms of the multiverse scientists might argue that they conceive of these as “naturalistic.” They would be like our world with physical laws and hard material substances and physical things. As we have seen there are those who go further and postulate the “rules change” idea. We probably should assume the rules work the same way because its all we know. We do assume this in making God arguments such as the cosmological argument. Yet the possibility exists that there could be other realms that are not physical and not “natural” as we know that concept. The probability of that increases when we realize that these realms are beyond our space/time thus they are beyond the domain of our cause and effect, and we know as “natural.” It really all goes back to the philosophical and ideological assumption about rules. There is no way to prove it either way. Ruling out the possibility of a spiritual realm based upon the fact that we don’t live in it would be stupid. The idea that “we never see any proof of it” is basically the same thing as saying “we don’t live it so it must not exist.” Of course this field is going to be suspect, and who can blame the critics? Anyone with a penchant for the unknown can set up shop and speculate about what might be “out there.” Yet science itself offers the possibility in the form of modern physics, the only rationale for closing that off is the distaste for religion.

All that is solid melts into air

This line by Marx deals with society, social and political institutions, but in thinking about the topic of SN it suggests a very different issue. The reductionist/materialists and phsyicalists assume and often argue that there is no proof of anything not material and not ' ‘physical” (energy is a form of matter).  The hard tangible nature of the physical is taken as the standard for reality while the notion of something beyond our ability to dietetic is seen in a skeptical way, even though the major developments in physics are based upon it. Is the physical world as tangible and solid as we think? Science talks about “particles” and constructs models of atoms made of wooden tubes and little balls this gives us the psychological impression that the world of the very tiny is based upon little solid balls. In reality subatomic particles are not made out of little balls, nor are these ‘particles” tangible or solid. In fact we could make a strong argument that no one even knows what they are made of.

We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far. Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions. This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.[9]
Particles are not solid; they are not very tiny chunks of solid stuff. They have no volume nor do they have the kind of stable existence we do. They “pop” in and out of existence! This is not proof for the supernatural. It might imply that the seeming solidity of “reality” is illusory. There are two kinds of subatomic particles, elementary and composite. Composites are made out of smaller particles. Now we hear it said that elementary particles are not made out of other particles. It’s substructure is unknown. They may or may not be made of smaller particles. That means we really don’t know what subatomic particles are made of. That means scientists are willing to believe in things they don’t understand.[10] While it is not definite enough to prove anything except that we don’t know the basis of reality, it does prove that and also the possibilities for the ultimate truth of this are still wide open. To rule out “the supernatural '' (by the wrong concept) on the assumption that we have no scientific proof of it is utterly arrogance and bombast. For all we know what we take to be solid unshakable reality might be nothing more than God’s day dream. Granted, there is end to the spinning of moon beams and we can talk all day about what ‘might be,’ so we need evidence and arguments to warrant the placing of confidence in propositions. We have confidence in placing evidence; it doesn’t have to be scientific although some of it is. That will come in the next chapter. The point here is that there is no basis for the snide dismissal of concepts such as supernatural and supernature.




Notes

[1]"The God Cpnsclusion,"Facebook, No date given. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid026zwX5w1B83ewVadJz8osCAANt6u7D7ZLVnyMkcU2umBVo5C3qmi7oQe86WVkCfmVl&id=110569734986874&comment_id=776115883509430&reply_comment_id=1133078190613576¬if_id=1660685142035948¬if_t=feed_comment_reply&ref=notif

[2]Joseph Hinman, The Trace of God: Rational Warrant for Belief, 2014,' On Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714 In this, my first book, I discuss a body of scientific work in psychology (200 studies going back to the 1960s The jist of these studes is that relgioius experomce is an experience of something real.Although we cant [rove that God is the thimg experoence thyatis the best explaination.

[3] “are there other dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider. Website. Science and Facilities Council, 2012 URL: http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%20Detectives/Take%205/13686.aspx

[4] Ibid.

[5] George F.R. Ellis. “Does the Miltiverse Really Exist [preview]” Scientific American (July 19, 2011) On line version URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist George F.R. Ellis is Professor Emeritus in Mathematics at University of Cape Town. He’s been professor of Cosmic Physics at SISSA (Trieste)

[6] Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong, Posted on September 18, 2012 by woi blog, URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

[7] ibid, “Welcome to the Multiverse,” Posted on May 21, 2012 by woit URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4715

[8] Mohsen Kermanshahi. Universal Theory. “String Theory.” Website URL:http://www.universaltheory.org/html/others/stringtheory5.htm

[9] STFC ibid, op cit. [10] Giorgio Giacomelli; Maurizio Spurio Particles and Fundamental Interactions: An Introduction to Particle Physics (2nd ed.). Italy: Springer-Verlag, science and Business media, 2009, pp. 1–3.

Posted

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408765

Joseph Hinman's new book is God, Science and Ideology. Hinman argues that atheists and skeptics who use science as a barrier to belief in God are not basing doubt on science itself but upon an ideology that adherer's to science in certain instances. This ideology, "scientism," assumes that science is the only valid form of knowledge and rules out religious belief. Hinman argues that science is neutral with respect to belief in God … In this book Hinman with atheist positions on topics such as consciousness and the nature of knowledge, puts to rest to arguments of Lawrence M. Krauss, Victor J. Stenger, and Richard Dawkins, and delimits the areas for potential God arguments.

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the typos claims that you just did not write from the dead and she just did not claim to be divine

Anonymous said...

Will you make a response to this https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I don't mind answering questions or suggesting research but I have my own research agenda. most of this stuff you could learn to answer.

URL to my pages on the resurrection, on my website Religious a priori

http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/resurrection-pages.html

George said...

Atheism is the default position. It is the position of the intelligent. It is the position of the educated. It is the position of common sense. Christianity is stupid. You guys have this obsession over a Jewish zombie, goats, sheep, etc. What a dumb life you must live. You have this god who never talks to you or gives any proof to believe him. Delusions. Lies. Bahumbug.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

George said...
Atheism is the default position.

No it's not. There isno default you believe anything you want to believe.


It is the position of the intelligent.


bull shit. what about atheists who find Jesus, Like me? Most atheists on the net are extremely stupid.


It is the position of the educated.

I had a 4,o in PhD program for four years, how far in school did you go? How do you explain Alfred North Whitehead, Alvin Plantinga, Charles Hartshorne and many, many, other brilliant people who believed in God?


It is the position of common sense. Christianity is stupid.

you have probably not been exposed to very many kinds of Christians, you have never read any real theology and I bet you don't really understand Christianity. I bet your objection is superficial like an ideological rejection of miracles.


You guys have this obsession over a Jewish zombie, goats, sheep, etc. What a dumb life you must live. You have this god who never talks to you or gives any proof to believe him. Delusions. Lies. Bahumbug.

Topical propaganda redefine things to make it sound stupid.

Anonymous said...

It's funny even atheist science is now admit the religious belief is actually very common and very normal in the brain atheism is hard to forward without hard cognitive thought go read the book born to believe and it shows religious beliefs are actually very normal and very common in the brain or the book why God won't go away it's funny that guy really is the definition of the Donny Krueger effect

Anonymous said...

That atheist probably never even met atheist argument here's an argument against David Hume in miracles David Hume claimed that human experience refutes the ideas of miracles all right what about a man who lived in the desert who never saw us would that make ice a miracle well he would say other humans experienced eyes all right what about people who lived who lived 300,000 years ago who never would have sighs All humans friends was once a small tribe in Africa would that make ice a miracle according to humans definition yes

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The Dunning-Kruger not Donny-Kruger. I can tell you know all about it.

that argument is genetic fallacy.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Hume's argument is wrong headed. Of course, miracles defy human experience the whole point is they are not natural and rarely happen. that's how we know it's the work of God.

Anonymous said...

I'm not arguing against miracles I'm arguing for miracles my point is that you just can't say human experience make something impossible because humans have not experienced everything yet for example no human in sample no human in 1700 experience the flight of airplanes but that doesn't mean airplanes are absent from human experience

Anonymous said...

And the second point I don't think it's much of a genetic fallacy my point was he claimed that religious beliefs are a mental illness and I showed religious beliefs are actually very normal and very common in the brain that was my only point yes there are product of evolution religious beliefs that doesn't make religious beliefs a mental illness though that was the point my point was to point out that religious beliefs are natural

Anonymous said...

Could you respond to this
Could you take a photo of the resurrected Jesus?
April 22, 2014Robert MylesLeave a comment
Image

This cartoon which I came across on Facebook the other day reminds me of a quote from resurrection expert N.T. Wright as to the appearance and composition of the resurrected body. He writes:

‘Assuming that a camera would pick up what most human eyes would have seen… my best guess is that cameras would sometimes have seen [the resurrected] Jesus and sometimes not’. (Wright & Borg, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, 1999. p. 125)

This clarification, while entirely speculative, might evoke for some readers the case of vampirism, another mythical condition, in which the subject’s image cannot be captured by any sort of film, camera, or mirrorhttps://web.archive.org/web/20150521093301/https://bibleandclassstruggle.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/could-you-take-a-photo-of-the-resurrected-jesus/

im-skeptical said...

"Hume's argument is wrong headed. Of course, miracles defy human experience the whole point is they are not natural and rarely happen. that's how we know it's the work of God."

- Hume's argument is right on. Human experience is that we hear claims and stories of miracles, but we don't actually see them with our own eyes. Ever.

Anonymous said...

Can I ask you to respond to this denying the distance of Joseph of Arimathea https://web.archive.org/web/20190922221520/https://bibleandclassstruggle.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/was-joseph-of-arimathea-a-follower-of-jesus/

Anonymous said...

No I'm skeptical the analogy doesn't stand as I gave in an example if you lived in a if you lived in a small tribe in Africa 300,000 years ago all human experience was a dry equator and if you saw ice for the first time that would be technically a miracle because no human experienced ice before you just can't say human experience basically concludes the idea of miracles because humans have not experienced everything yet before 1960 there was no human that experienced going out out into orbit like Neil Armstrong

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the typo my analogy was that you can't say experience includes the idea of miracles cuz humans have not experienced everything yet

im-skeptical said...

Hume knew the difference between something that violates physical laws and something that an individual may not have seen before.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
"Hume's argument is wrong headed. Of course, miracles defy human experience the whole point is they are not natural and rarely happen. that's how we know it's the work of God."

- Hume's argument is right on. Human experience is that we hear claims and stories of miracles, but we don't actually see them with our own eyes. Ever.

6:49 PM


But I have seen them. should I pretend I haven't because you haven't?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
Hume knew the difference between something that violates physical laws and something that an individual may not have seen before.

Hume is going to ask me to deny my experiences because he hasn't had them.

im-skeptical said...

What you saw is not a miracle. There were no physical laws being violated, because that doesn't happen. You had some experience and thought it was a miracle.

Anonymous said...

What is your opinion on this https://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-oldest-titles-for-jesus.html

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
What you saw is not a miracle. There were no physical laws being violated, because that doesn't happen. You had some experience and thought it was a miracle.

You have no idea what I've seen. I you know nothing about me.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Skep you assert SN things must be seen? where do you get that? that is your standard but not God's standard.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
What is your opinion on this https://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-oldest-titles-for-jesus.html
“Yahweh was one of the sons of El Elyon; and Jesus in the Gospels was described as a Son of El Elyon, God Most High. In other words, he was described as a heavenly being. Thus the annunciation narrative has the term ‘Son of the Most High’ (Luke 1,32) and the demoniac recognized his exorcist as ‘Son of the Most High God’ (Mark 5,7). Jesus is not called the son of Yahweh nor the son of the Lord, but he is called Lord. We also know that whoever wrote the New Testament translated the name Yahweh by Kyrios, Lord … This suggests that the Gospel writers, in using the terms ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of God Most High’, saw Jesus as an angel figure, and gave him their version of the sacred name Yahweh.” Margaret Barker (1992. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, p. 4-5)

what's wrong with the idea of the Trinity? He argues that the gospel writers saw Jesus as ab angelic sort of being there is no reason to assume they made a distinction between God most high and the Lord" or between El Elyon and J (Y). Those are the same God. No reason to assume the gospelers made the kind of nutty distinction the writer of that paper does.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

"Jesus is not called the son of Yahweh nor the son of the Lord,"

they tried nt to say the name of God, A very ancient idea that the hoy name is to sacred to say. Of course they wouldn't call Jesus son of Y.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

another thing: "Hence, I think from the evidence that we have, that Marcion did not call Jesus "Son of the Most High", but simply "Son of God" and "Son of Man", amongst other titles mentioned above. That the "God" of whom Jesus is called "Son", is, however, the "supreme God" ("deus optimus"), not the Creatorgod or the Judge, hence, not the God of the Jewish Scriptures, is highlighted by Marcion." [3]


Jesus called himself son of man and that from Daniel. draw conclusions from such scant evidence is foolish, there are too many details

Anonymous said...

Could I ask you to respond to something please this really shook my face someone was Jesus buried in a tomb or not I don't know anymore this video bothered me could you respond https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMufkaxs2Go

im-skeptical said...

"Skep you assert SN things must be seen? where do you get that? that is your standard but not God's standard."

- No. I assert that the SN is never seen. My standard (empiricism) is that belief is based on objective (corroborated) observation. I understand that you may experience perceptions and feelings. Don't fool yourself into thinking that I haven't had similar experiences. We are both human.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
"Skep you assert SN things must be seen? where do you get that? that is your standard but not God's standard."

- No. I assert that the SN is never seen. My standard (empiricism) is that belief is based on objective (corroborated) observation. I understand that you may experience perceptions and feelings. Don't fool yourself into thinking that I haven't had similar experiences. We are both human.

you are saying reality must conform to your ideology. I know what I've seen, you are trying to insert preconceived notions into reality as a negation 0f other people's perceptions.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Could I ask you to respond to something please this really shook my face someone was Jesus buried in a tomb or not I don't know anymore this video bothered me could you respond https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMufkaxs2Go

that is bull shit, don't read crap read stuff of academic quality

im-skeptical said...

"you are saying reality must conform to your ideology. I know what I've seen, you are trying to insert preconceived notions into reality as a negation 0f other people's perceptions. "

- I didn't say that at all. I made a statement about belief. And I didn't negate your experiences at all. If my belief doesn't agree with your belief, that is not an argument that yours must be false. If you try to put words in my mouth, I may end up in the awkward position of having to disagree with myself. If I choose to make an argument, I would prefer to make my own case.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

that guy's arguments are nothing special they are just the standard stuff one hears all the tie. example, he asserts that Marl was the first to write about the resurrection so the other's are just copying him. That just assumes Mark made up the resurrection There's no reason to assume that.

the apostolic fathers speak about it in a factual way like many atheists that guy assumes Mark made everything up because wrote first..It is not true that Mark was first to write about the res. see Metacrock's blog for styff pre mark redaction. Koester says PMR ended with empty tomb. That guy is totally unaware.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


- I didn't say that at all. I made a statement about belief. And I didn't negate your experiences at all. If my belief doesn't agree with your belief, that is not an argument that yours must be false. If you try to put words in my mouth, I may end up in the awkward position of having to disagree with myself. If I choose to make an argument, I would prefer to make my own case.

I am glad to hear you say that, or see you write it.I agree. I that is a valid position.

Anonymous said...

One of the atheist comments in the video bothered me could you respond to this 45:36 - This is why I don't respect IP: his original argument was that the Greek word used for "bury" indicates a proper, tomb- style burial, but now, when he's been shown that this word can also mean a trench grave, he pivots to saying that this wasn't a specific commentary on Roman practices, and he tries to differentiate a "proper" trench grave from an "unceremonious" trench grave, as if the word itself actually speaks to the former, and excludes the latter.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMufkaxs2Go I know it's a long video I know you can't respond to everything could you just respond to that section in the inspiring philosophy section of that video

Anonymous said...

“Yahweh was one of the sons of El Elyon; and Jesus in the Gospels was described as a Son of El Elyon, God Most High. In other words, he was described as a heavenly being. Thus the annunciation narrative has the term ‘Son of the Most High’ (Luke 1,32) and the demoniac recognized his exorcist as ‘Son of the Most High God’ (Mark 5,7). Jesus is not called the son of Yahweh nor the son of the Lord, but he is called Lord. We also know that whoever wrote the New Testament translated the name Yahweh by Kyrios, Lord … This suggests that the Gospel writers, in using the terms ‘Lord’ and ‘Son of God Most High’, saw Jesus as an angel figure, and gave him their version of the sacred name Yahweh.” Margaret Barker (1992. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, p. 4-5)

Yahweh was indeed originally one of the seventy sons of El, back when the Hebrews were polytheistic. Much of the pre-Captivity Bible is about the priests of Yahweh trying to persuade the people to worship Yahweh and Yahweh alone.

By the time the Captivity ended, the people were more-or-less monotheistic, and by Jesus' time I doubt anyone still believed Yahweh was the son of El - the two had fused together.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
One of the atheist comments in the video bothered me could you respond to this 45:36 - This is why I don't respect IP: his original argument was that the Greek word used for "bury" indicates a proper, tomb- style burial, but now, when he's been shown that this word can also mean a trench grave, he pivots to saying that this wasn't a specific commentary on Roman practices, and he tries to differentiate a "proper" trench grave from an "unceremonious" trench grave, as if the word itself actually speaks to the former, and excludes the latter.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMufkaxs2Go I know it's a long video I know you can't respond to everything could you just respond to that section in the inspiring philosophy section of that video

3:08 PM

I don't make arguments based upon understanding Greek unless I am answering their argument, It's nots art because unless you are an expert in Greek, I am far from it, you don't have the upper hand, we have better arguments than that. such as explaining the rapid growth of the faith.


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


Yahweh was indeed originally one of the seventy sons of El, back when the Hebrews were polytheistic. Much of the pre-Captivity Bible is about the priests of Yahweh trying to persuade the people to worship Yahweh and Yahweh alone.

By the time the Captivity ended, the people were more-or-less monotheistic, and by Jesus' time I doubt anyone still believed Yahweh was the son of El - the two had fused together.

Pix

conjecture based entirely upon opposing Christian beliefs.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

the names used of God in OT were barrowed from Pagam myth. That is probably true but it doesn't do anything to the Christian faith, it doesn't disprove the God of the Bible just because the early Hebrews had a language that had lots of pagan loan words.

the word God is pagan. In the NT God is theos not god.

Anonymous said...

I saw a Twitter post by an atheist scholar claiming that Mary was underaged and it was a response to inspiring philosophies I saw a Twitter post by kipp Davis criticizing you on the age of Mary could you respond to this

Here I am-the slave of the Lord. So shall it happen to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38).

If this implies consent to you, then I have concerns. Have you read the Bible, Michael? I suppose I would be crazy not to mention Mary and her son Jesus. But it is not that she was the mother of such an important child that matters in this case. It is the way the story is told that is noteworthy for our context. If you come from a Christian perspective, please try to set aside the impor- tance of Jesus as you consider how the story is told.

The angel Gabriel visits Mary, and she is perplexed by the visit and the greeting. So Gabriel reassures her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with G-d. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:30). Mary’s response is quite the reasonable one. She asks how this is possible since she has not been touched by a man. The messen- ger replies that the spirit of G-d will overpower her, and thus the child will be called a son of G-d (just like other heroes who were born from women impregnated by a god). Her courageous response, given how little room for negotiations she had: “Here am I, slave of the LORD. May it be with me according to your word.”

Does any of this sound familiar? Do you hear the resonance with the stories of Leah, Rachel, Hannah, and the women whose story was told linking their ability to produce a child to G-d’s favor upon them? Or to the references to women calling themselves servants (or slaves) of the LORD? Just these two bits, I invite you to sit with them.

Anonymous said...

Anon: I saw a Twitter post by an atheist scholar claiming that Mary was underaged and it was a response to inspiring philosophies I saw a Twitter post by kipp Davis criticizing you on the age of Mary could you respond to this

There was no age of consent back then. Bear in mind it varies by country across the world and even by state in the US, so there is no specific age of consent anyway.

Given she was betrothed, and not married, she was probably between 12 and 16, if it happened as the gospels would have us believe, but that was likely normal in that era. Mary not having a lot of choice about it was probably also normal.

Anon: She asks how this is possible since she has not been touched by a man.

Odd thing for Mary to say. Virgins routinely get pregnant; they do so by having sex. That she had not as yet been touched by a man is no impediment to that. She was betrothed to Joseph; an angel telling her she would have a kid really should not have surprised her.

Anon: Does any of this sound familiar? Do you hear the resonance with the stories of Leah, Rachel, Hannah, and the women whose story was told linking their ability to produce a child to G-d’s favor upon them? Or to the references to women calling themselves servants (or slaves) of the LORD? Just these two bits, I invite you to sit with them.

In all those cases, the women had God's favour, but they conceived after sex. Why imagine Mary was any different?

The messiah had to be a direct descendant of David, and both genealogies show that through the male line, through Joseph.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
I saw a Twitter post by an atheist scholar claiming that Mary was underaged and it was a response to inspiring philosophies I saw a Twitter post by kipp Davis criticizing you on the age of Mary could you respond to this




do you have a URL?

Anonymous said...

No I have a screenshot though I have a screenshot I can send it to you by email he posted it a year ago I think I can send you the screenshot by email

Anonymous said...

1. In my answer above I acknowledged that the life of Apollonius was late enough for it to be possible it was influenced by the gospels. The dating of Chariton's novel is not certain but it seems to be from the mid-First Century. That puts it before the gospel accounts, which do echo it in some aspects. That aside, it's an example of how common the idea of apotheosis was in the period and shows how there was already a set of tropes that the gospels could adapt for their narratives. Caesar and Augustus was said to have undergone apotheosis, not resurrection. Jesus is depicted as undergoing both.

2. The fact remains that Paul makes no distinction between his experience of Jesus, which was clearly a vision of some kind (the accounts of it in Acts may or may not reflect what he actually experienced), from the "appearances" to the other witnesses. The "physical/spiritual" bodies section in 1Cor 15 does not make it clear exactly what he was saying but πνευματικὸν definitely does indicate something other than simply an imperishable body.

3. I acknowledge that the absence of a detail from Paul does not on its own indicate ahistoricity, given the brief summary nature of his account and the obvious differences with the style of the later narrative accounts. But elements that would have helped Paul's argument greatly are conspicuous by their absence. If Paul was arguing for a physical revivification and knew of an "empty tomb" tradition, for example, it's very strange it gets no mention here.

4. Not all the appearances are in a group setting. Paul's isn't and neither is Mary's in gJohn. That aside, my argument is that individual visions of Jesus are a likely point of origin for the idea of his resurrection. Stories of group encounters developed later (which explains why they are so inconsistent). Then we have the stories of encounters with people that are only "recognsed" as the risen Jesus later, which sound very much like another form of psychological projection again.

Anonymous said...

Could you respond to this Rather more consistency than we get. Personally, differing small details like the difference in the names of the women who went to the tomb don't indicate to me that the story isn't true. But when one account has an earthquake, a guard and an angel descending from heaven who rolls back the stone, all while the women are there, while the others forget to mention these things, that sets the alarm bells ringing.

I've analysed multiple ancient accounts of the same event. They do differ slightly but they do not look like these stories. This is a tale that is clearly growing and evolving in the telling.

Since we've never actually found real evidence of the 'Q' source, are you referring to another source?

I'm referring to the fact that there is common material in gMatt and gLuke that is not from gMark and there is material unique to gMatt and unique to gLuke. Whether any, some or all of that material is based on written sources or oral material or a bit of both is not absolutely clear. That at least some of the common material in gMatt and gLuke is based on (now lost) textual material is clear. I'd also say that analysis of it shows that it is from more than one lost textual source. There is also evidence of "Q material" in Paul's letters.

So no, we have never found a "Q source" because there is probably no single "Q source" to be found. But it is very clear that most of the "Q" material was taken from a lost textual source or sources.

How did the Christ story survive while the name of Theudas is unknown?

Why is Islam a religion of 1.5 billion adherents whereas the once huge religion of Zoroastrianism that used to dominate a vast area that is now Islamic has dwindled to a remnant sect? Why is it that Josephus detailed the Essenes as one of the great sects of Judaism and (perhaps) gave Christianity barely half a sentence whereas now there are 2.1 billion Christians and zero Essenes? Why did the sects of Jesus and John the Baptist come to believe their dead leaders rose from the dead whereas the followers of Theudas or Athronges don't seem to have done so?

The whole end of his letter addresses the physical nature of the resurrection of believers

George said...

Christianity's most dangerous idea: "There is no such thing as an unknowable truth. One can possess knowledge of truths that appear impossible to possess by simply pretending to possess them."
What should I pretend to know?
1. Should I pretend to know that an undetectable supernatural realm exists that is inhabited by undetectable, all-powerful, immortal, thinking agents, monitoring every human thought and act, justly entitled to micromanage every aspect of human existence?
2. Should I pretend to know that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is wrong, that everything that exists was created out of nothing by a supernatural force, a God, that exists outside of time and space?
3. Should I pretend to know that I have a special intimate personal relationship with the supernatural realm that telepathically endows me with knowledge of unknowable truths, to tap into the mind of God, to know what it thinks and wants?
4. Should I pretend to know that when our ancient ancestors created their religions and wrote their holy books, they did not include in them any imaginary narratives, things that they were pretending to know but in reality, they could not possibly know?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I don't have to pretend because i know those things are real

Anonymous said...

Could you respond to this Rather more consistency than we get. Personally, differing small details like the difference in the names of the women who went to the tomb don't indicate to me that the story isn't true. But when one account has an earthquake, a guard and an angel descending from heaven who rolls back the stone, all while the women are there, while the others forget to mention these things, that sets the alarm bells ringing.

I've analysed multiple ancient accounts of the same event. They do differ slightly but they do not look like these stories. This is a tale that is clearly growing and evolving in the telling.

Since we've never actually found real evidence of the 'Q' source, are you referring to another source?

I'm referring to the fact that there is common material in gMatt and gLuke that is not from gMark and there is material unique to gMatt and unique to gLuke. Whether any, some or all of that material is based on written sources or oral material or a bit of both is not absolutely clear. That at least some of the common material in gMatt and gLuke is based on (now lost) textual material is clear. I'd also say that analysis of it shows that it is from more than one lost textual source. There is also evidence of "Q material" in Paul's letters.

So no, we have never found a "Q source" because there is probably no single "Q source" to be found. But it is very clear that most of the "Q" material was taken from a lost textual source or sources.

How did the Christ story survive while the name of Theudas is unknown?

Why is Islam a religion of 1.5 billion adherents whereas the once huge religion of Zoroastrianism that used to dominate a vast area that is now Islamic has dwindled to a remnant sect? Why is it that Josephus detailed the Essenes as one of the great sects of Judaism and (perhaps) gave Christianity barely half a sentence whereas now there are 2.1 billion Christians and zero Essenes? Why did the sects of Jesus and John the Baptist come to believe their dead leaders rose from the dead whereas the followers of Theudas or Athronges don't seem to have done so?

The whole end of his letter addresses the physical nature of the resurrection of believers

Reply

George3:07 PM
Christianity's most dangerous idea: "There is no such thing as an unknowable truth. One can possess knowledge of truths that appear impossible to possess by simply pretending to possess them."
What should I pretend to know?
1. Should I pretend to know that an undetectable supernatural realm exists that is inhabited by undetectable, all-powerful, immortal, thinking agents, monitoring every human thought and act, justly entitled to micromanage every aspect of human existence?
2. Should I pretend to know that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is wrong, that everything that exists was created out of nothing by a supernatural force, a God, that exists outside of time and space?
3. Should I pretend to know that I have a special intimate personal relationship with the supernatural realm that telepathically endows me with knowledge of unknowable truths, to tap into the mind of God, to know what it thinks and wants?
4. Should I pretend to know that when our ancient ancestors created their religions and wrote their holy books, they did not include in them any imaginary narratives, things that they were pretending to know but in reality, they could not possibly know?

Reply

Anonymous said...

Could you make a response to this https://web.archive.org/web/20150915043208/http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon.htm

Daniel said...

Hey do you have any articles on Joseph of Arimathea or could you make a response to https://web.archive.org/web/20190922221520/https://bibleandclassstruggle.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/was-joseph-of-arimathea-a-follower-of-jesus/#comments