He’s examining his belief. What is your problem with that? You’re assuming he won’t question it. I don’t.
@ SethWT,
My dog got run over and died in my arms a day before I was able to bury him. So I wrapped him in a tarp and put him in the garage where it is cool.
The next day I went into the garage to bury my dog, but he was gone along with the tarp that I wrapped him in. I am sure that he rose bodily from the dead and is roaming the streets. I’ve been looking for him everywhere but I can’t find him.
I talked to my son and told him what happened and my son looked at my wife and said, “Don’t worry about Spot dad, I’m sure he is doing just fine in heaven.”. It felt as if he knew something I didn’t.
I miss that dog and hope he is alright, wherever he is. I’m sure he is alive, I know it’s unreasonable but I just know it’s true. That was twenty years ago.
Seth, if Jesus rose from the dead do you think he is still alive after 2500 years? He died on the cross, but then rose from the dead and became immortal?
Hello All.
Wow. Thanks everybody for your comments! As I wrote a month or so ago, I continue to be very consumed by the chronic care of a very ill loved one. And now, The COVID-19 issues are making things even more challenging. I had a bit of time tonight, so I just read through the last 4-5 pages again. There are so many interesting threads. Forgive me if I am not able to address most of the queries and suggestions. Please know that I am sincerely grateful for your input, I have read every comment and I value your facts and opinions. I really wish I could discuss them thoroughly with each of you. I am sure I would have great fun and learn a ton.
This forum is helping me to examine my belief in something that is impossible. I hope I have been clear that I am not trying to prove my belief. I am willing to change my belief. I truly have no quarter for superstition. I agree with Stevie Wonder who wrote: “When you believe in things that you don’t understand, Then you suffer, Superstition ain’t the way.”
I would like to redirect back to my original post:
“Smalley’s Dogma Debate challenged me to take a deeper look at the reason for my belief. I was surprised when I came up with a reason that I have not heard addressed on his show (I probably missed it). I also don’t recall it being addressed in the Christian apologetics I have heard or read (which is probably more of a reflection of my ignorance than my originality). I seriously doubt I am out ahead of the apologists with anything new, but it’s a new clarity for me. I am thankful to Smalley for the challenge.”
I would like your feedback regarding my own personal reason for belief in the Resurrection. I fear I may not be expressing it well in writing. To help clarify, here is some reedited text from my article:
“I’m guessing that there are about 5,000 reasons why I believe the above. I’m guessing. I mean really guessing – this number could be off by several thousand - that there are about 5,000 reasons. While I’m guessing at the number, I believe there is an actual, finite number of reasons. None of these reasons are written, or theoretical, or abstract in any way. These reasons are human beings (in so far as a human being can be considered a reason for a belief). They are human beings who lived during the time that Jesus of Nazareth (or, Yeshua, in his native language) was reported to have lived in a physical human form on earth about 2,000 years ago…”
“I refer to these people as if they existed and the stories about them are accurate. I am not claiming that they all existed. If some of them are fictitious characters, the total is less than 5000. If they are all fictitious, my belief is wrong…”
"So, to make it a nice round number that works into a good title for this idea, I named them “The 5000”. The number is reminiscent of the story of Yeshua’s “Feeding of the Five Thousand” [the 5000 people being referred to in the title of my article are not the 5000 people from Feeding of the Five Thousand story].
Why are these 5000 people my reasons to believe?
They were people who were physically close enough to Yeshua to have interacted with him personally, if even very briefly. These people reportedly claimed to have experienced intimate irrefutable proof, directly from Yeshua, of the truth of the events that were then told from person to person and ended up being summarized in the Nicene Creed (AD 325).
They were the humans for whom Yeshua passed what I call the “Thomas Test”.
"I feel that it is reasonable that the story and claims of The 5000 could have been passed accurately to AD 325. I also feel that the story and claims of The 5000 are impossible by every measure of my experience as a human being, so far. I trust The 5000 and at least 7 people since they lived. I feel it is a reasonable trust. Just common sense really. If something so ultimately important had actually happened, humans could remember it that long. I have heard it said, and I think it is true, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I just humbly add that extraordinary events are extraordinarily memorable. But if they were wrong then I am wrong.
“Here is some good news; I don’t have to wait for Yeshua to pass the Thomas Test for me. I believe because I can, and I respect those to whom the impossible remains sensibly impossible. I will join with them, if they will have me, to reduce human suffering. I do not discount any of Smalley’s hard questions. I share many of them. I love to civilly discuss them, to wrestle with them. I expect answers. I expect Yeshua to answer them. I doubt it will happen before I die.”
Thoughts?
Welcome back Seth. Hope life gets better for you soon.
You keep repeating yourself. I’ll try to not to repeat myself.
I’m guessing. I mean really guessing – this number could be off by several thousand – that there are about 5,000 reasons. While I’m guessing at the number, I believe there is an actual, finite number of reasons. None of these reasons are written, or theoretical, or abstract in any way. These reasons are human beings (in so far as a human being can be considered a reason for a belief). -- SethYou pretty much address the weakness of your own argument here. Individuals are data points, or they provide data, that is, their experience. You can find definitions of the difference between that and “evidence” quite easily. In this case, historical evidence.
I refer to these people as if they existed and the stories about them are accurate.Based on what? But let’s skip the numbers, let’s say we could confirm one eyewitness to Jesus/Yeshua. Let’s say we could confirm something he said. Of all the things attributed to Jesus, none of them make much of an argument for divinity. They are often trivial. At best they are universally agreed upon norms, like love your neighbor. It doesn’t matter who said them, since we know many people have had those thoughts and expressed them in a variety of ways. The statements stand on their own merits.
Let’s say we could confirm something like bodily resurrection. If it’s true, then there should also be evidence for that resurrected person acting in our lives today, so you really haven’t solved anything unless you could also solve that. The other option is, it’s part of some unknownable plan, but since we can prove the miracle, then we should just trust the plan. If that’s true, then I join the camp of people who say if God is real, I don’t want any part of him, he’s a horrible being and I owe him nothing.
Interesting, religions elevate the mundane to the divine and at the same time lower the divine to the mundane. It gets curioser and curioser…
Hi Lausten,
I’ll try to not to repeat myself.Thanks for your patience. I may need to hear things several times. Usually do when I reach out beyond my habitual thought patterns.
You pretty much address the weakness of your own argument here. Individuals are data points, or they provide data, that is, their experience. You can find definitions of the difference between that and “evidence” quite easily. In this case, historical evidence.I have tried throughout the article to acknowledge weaknesses in my belief that Yeshua rose bodily from the dead. In the search of truth, I find the weaknesses of my ideas as, or more important than, the strengths. The strong ideas seem to turn out to have been self-evident while the weak ideas tend to originate in me, or beguile me.
I looked up data vs evidence. Found this: research methods - What is the difference between evidence and information? - Genealogy & Family History Stack Exchange I think I get your point. Just because these ‘5000’ (or 1) exist as a data point does not mean that they add any supportive evidence regarding whether or not Yeshua rose bodily from the dead. Great point. We may be on to something here. I am focused on clarifying, for myself, the core reason why I believe Yeshua rose bodily from the dead. Not whether or not he is a deity.
Based on what?“I feel that it is reasonable that the story and claims of The 5000 could [emphasis added] have been passed accurately to AD 325."
Let’s say we could confirm something like bodily resurrection. If it’s true, then there should also be evidence for that resurrected person acting in our lives today, so you really haven’t solved anything unless you could also solve that. The other option is, it’s part of some unknownable plan, but since we can prove the miracle, then we should just trust the plan. If that’s true, then I join the camp of people who say if God is real, I don’t want any part of him, he’s a horrible being and I owe him nothing.I am not interested in proving whether or not Yeshua rose bodily from the dead. It seems to me that it is likely to be impossible to prove that something impossible happened. That is a rabbit hole for which I have neither the needed intellect or hunger for rabbit meat. Also, I am in wholehearted agreement with you that the deity you and others describe would be horrible.
I think we are getting better clarity of my request of this forum. I am focused like a laser on why I believe Yeshua rose bodily from the dead. Do you agree with me that it is reasonable that the story and claims of The 5000 could [emphasis added] have been passed accurately to AD 325?
write4U
First, from your profile, you describe yourself as a “metaphysical naturalist and humanist.” I’d love to hear more about that. I seem to resonate with that a bit.
Interesting, religions elevate the mundane to the divine and at the same time lower the divine to the mundane. It gets curioser and curioser..It is probably fuel for a separate thread, but this sounds very Roman Catholic.
I am focused on clarifying, for myself, the core reason why I believe Yeshua rose bodily from the dead. Not whether or not he is a deity.I don't know how to separate these two things. The way you would determine why you believe is the same way you would you use for any determination of truth. Have you heard of the "Outsider's Test for Faith"? You think about something similar that you don't believe, like Allah or Fairies, then think about all the ways you determined that. Then apply those exact same ways to Jesus.
I don’t know how to separate these two thingsIt seems to me a variable that there may have been some other means, as yet undiscovered by the general public by which a human may be raised bodily from the dead. Perhaps Yeshua was the first widely observed example of some kind of evolutionary stage of our species. I do believe that Yeshua is divine (God) as defined in the Roman Catholic Catechism (second edition): "God: The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, as as the source of salvation." (Glossary). That is my accepted definition of God. But before I got to assigning that to Yeshua, as I did, I first separated out whether or not he was, in fact, raised bodily from the dead. Because if he wasn't, then I would be a Pagan Humanist (I made that up) because I get a ton of happy brain stimulation from mysticism and reducing suffering in others.
The way you would determine why you believe is the same way you would you use for any determination of truth. Have you heard of the “Outsider’s Test for Faith”? You think about something similar that you don’t believe, like Allah or Fairies, then think about all the ways you determined that. Then apply those exact same ways to Jesus.I believe I have done this, a lot, but if you are up for it I would sincerely like to have you walk me through it. It is always good to have someone outside of myself give me feedback about things I think I have figured out. Very humbling. Very fruitful.
Let’s use your suggestion of Fairies. For clarity; in what way, in your opinion, do I think that Fairies are similar to Yeshua?
For clarity; in what way, in your opinion, do I think that Fairies are similar to Yeshua?This is not a good start. I appears you have trouble recognizing simple logic. The suggestion was, think of something you don't believe. That's your choice, and I have no idea what you think about fairies. You have to do that. The next part; Whatever it is you pick that you don't believe, list reasons why you don't believe it.
fot5000 said; write4U, First, from your profile, you describe yourself as a “metaphysical naturalist and humanist.” I’d love to hear more about that. I seem to resonate with that a bit.I do believe that Nature (the universe) possesses certain metaphysical properties, specifically a "mathematical essence".
This crucial property is already described in chaos theory which desrcibes the self-ordering formation of recurring regular patterns even within chaotic conditions. This, IMO is the very foundation for the concept of evolution, i.e. the gradual change from simple to complex patterns and allowed for the emergence of the Grand Universal patterns from a chaotic beginning. When there is cause the result is always mathematical in essence. It cannot be otherwise.
But mathematics are a metaphysical potential which controls all physical behaviors, hence my affinity for the term “metaphysical naturalist”.
The interesting part is that the dynamic interactions of mathematical values and functions give the appearance of sentience and motivated causality, but in reality it is a “quasi-intelligence”
quasi-...... (combining form)1: in some sense or degree, quasiperiodic, quasi-judicial
2: resembling in some degree, quasiparticle
The suggestion was, think of something you don’t believe.You wrote, "You think about something similar [italics added] that you don’t believe, like Allah or Fairies..." I have a layman's understanding of logic, not a scholarly one. So good luck to you with me. I'll try not to step in it too often. When I replied, I thought I was probably reading too much into your sentence. My thoughts got stuck on the lack of similarity of Yeshua to other historical figures and myths. I see him as a 'singularity' in all that is. I can just hear David Smalley sighing at the level of "woo" in that last statement.
Let me have at it again…
How about this one? I do not believe that all of the miracles ascribed to Canonized Saints of the Roman Catholic Church are authentic.
-
Many (most?) of them were “authenticated” well before our modern means of scientific forensics and would not have held up to modern day scrutiny.
-
There was/is too much political, financial, social and cultural pressure by self interested individuals, organizations and devotees to reasonably expect that all the miraculous events ascribed to all Canonized Saints were/are authentic.
Applying these criteria to Yeshua:
-
None of the miraculous events ascribed to him were ever authenticated by our modern means of scientific forensics. I know there are some attempts to use such methods on ancient artifacts, but my definition of “modern day scrutiny” would include things like performing the resurrection of a human who is three days dead, like the story of Lazarus, under double blind controlled, recorded, examination and such. With many, many, repeated trials. I am sure there would be no lack of volunteers. Or, rather, living humans who would gladly donate the corpses of their loved ones.
-
The amount of political, financial, social and cultural pressure by self interested individuals, organizations and devotees to declare Yeshua to have been raised bodily from the dead pretty much sets the standard for the possibility that the story could be unreliable.
I truly hope this is not coming across as sarcasm. I could have simply conceded that I hold my belief in the bodily resurrection of Yeshua to a singular standard. A divine one. And, being a monotheist, a standard that is only measurable unto it/himself. That is why I got stuck on the word “similar” in your instructions and urgently wanted to clarify what you meant. But I really am sincerely asking you to walk me through this if you will. I want to better understand why you don’t believe what I do.
write4u
But mathematics are a metaphysical potential which controls all physical behaviors, hence my affinity for the term “metaphysical naturalist”.The interesting part is that the dynamic interactions of mathematical values and functions give the appearance of sentience and motivated causality, but in reality it is a “quasi-intelligence”
Thanks for opening this up for me a bit. It does sound interesting. So, are you saying that there is a metaphysical potential or property, commonly referred to as “Mathematics” that is operating beyond our observational capacities. We only see the functional effects it and ascribe human like intelligence to it and call it “God”?
fot5000 said; We only see the functional effects it and ascribe human like intelligence to it and call it “God”?That is an excellent analysis! The functional expressions in reality are identical, with the exception of God being seen as a "consciously motivated" dynamic creative force, whereas a Mathematical causality is purely unemotional, mechanical, and Deterministic.
If you are not familiar with Max Tegmark’s “Mathematical Universe”, this lecture is truly enlightening.
He proposes that consciousness itself is an emergent transcendent result of mathematical patterns. I find this lecture truly profound in concept and scope.
I would say you are being sarcastic, or just pulling my leg, but I watch a lot of this show.
The first caller says he can prove God, but his proof for God is that God must exist. He’s up against 3 skeptics who are well practiced and they interrupt him every time he expresses the fallacy. But he never gets it. This is what you are doing. For Yeshua, you first decided he was divine, then whenever any thought or argument comes up to ask why you think that, you fall back on “he just is”.
I don’t believe what you do because over the course of a few years I stopped believing all the things that supported that belief. First, it was the ancient stories. Most people today don’t believe in Noah, but many aren’t aware that there is absolutely no evidence for Moses. More get confused because there are tourist attractions for places in the Bible that Jesus visited. Hardly anyone understands how historians do their jobs.
After I got past all that I looked at my loving community. I believed in them and I still do, eventually I even re-established myself as a member. But I also believe in secular communities. I like physics, and we have formulas now for the origin of the universe, so no belief there. I read philosophers so I can make ethical arguments for and against things like abortion or the death penalty instead of relying on someone in a robe to tell me what’s right. There are probably a few more things. Eventually, one day I was walking in a park and instead of thinking of Jesus walking with me, I realized the narrative failed. It didn’t provide comfort. It didn’t provide anything the universe and the creatures in it weren’t providing. Belief was no longer needed.
Thank you @lausten, I enjoy reading your comments and replies. We had one of our very few misunderstandings when you were trying very honestly to help this person.
I see this metaphor : “The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost”, in a very simple way
Translation: “The Cause, the Effect, the Mathematical Function”
Thank you @lausten, I enjoy reading your comments and replies. We had one of our very few misunderstandings when you were trying very honestly to help this person.The tone and content of this comment confirms for me that I made a good decision to trust the CFI community and submit my inquiry. Thank you.
So I just started following Max Tegmark!
“It’s not the particles but the patterns that really matter.” Beautiful. Thanks.