Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

Ah! Then you agree with me. IF he wasn't an altruist, which I'm only saying, in one sense, he wasn't, if you take into account that everything we do is for a personnal reason.

But that's the whole point. There was no personal reason. The reason was Universal. His motive was to sacrifice his own life in order to redeem mankind. How more universal do you want?

Your attempt at providing a "personal reason" is ludicrous. Nobody sacrifices their life because they want the fame.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Your attempt at providing a "personal reason" is ludicrous. Nobody sacrifices their life because they want the fame.

Even if they get to rise from the dead and sit at the right hand of God?

~~Paul

 

[Tricky]

Your attempt at providing a "personal reason" is ludicrous. Nobody sacrifices their life because they want the fame.

Um... yes they do. All the time. Daredevils often die in the pursuit of nothing more than fame. You want to say "they do it for the thrill"? How can you be sure this wasn't a factor in Jesus' decision?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Um... yes they do. All the time. Daredevils often die in the pursuit of nothing more than fame.

I think you are getting daredevils mixed up with suicide bombers. Daredevils seek fame by doing things which are dangerous. If they get killed, it's not because they sacrificied their life. They simply gambled high stakes and lost.

You want to say "they do it for the thrill"? How can you be sure this wasn't a factor in Jesus' decision?

This is turning into something out of monty python again.

Jesus as a sado-masochist???

:

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Even if they get to rise from the dead and sit at the right hand of God?

~~Paul

Even if they get to rise from the dead and sit at the right hand of God.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff, I think you underestimate people's idea of the value of sitting at the right hand of God.

~~Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Geoff, I think you underestimate people's idea of the value of sitting at the right hand of God.

~~Paul

And I think this thread has strayed too far into the realms of the surreal.

 

[Belz...]

But that's the whole point. There was no personal reason. The reason was Universal. His motive was to sacrifice his own life in order to redeem mankind. How more universal do you want?

Your attempt at providing a "personal reason" is ludicrous. Nobody sacrifices their life because they want the fame.

HE DIDN'T sacrifice his life. According to christianity he's STILL ALIVE.

You've argued yourself that God cannot cease to exist. Unless you've changed your mind, then you must admit that he didn't lose a thing.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

HE DIDN'T sacrifice his life. According to christianity he's STILL ALIVE.

Unless you disagree, then you must admit that he didn't lose a thing.

Only according to primitive Christianity. There is a sophisticated branch, or two.

 

[Belz...]

Only according to primitive Christianity. There is a sophisticated branch, or two.

I'd like you to point out to me which branch of christianity says that god is dead and ceased to exist 2000 years ago.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'd like you to point out to me which branch of christianity says that god is dead and ceased to exist 2000 years ago.

Erm, no, that'd be Jesus. God can't die. This is sophisticated Christianity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

 

[Belz...]

Erm, no, that'd be Jesus. God can't die. This is sophisticated Christianity:

"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."

...well that doesn't make any sense, now. Either he exists of he doesn't. I'd say this is sophistic Christianity.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

...well that doesn't make any sense, now. Either he exists of he doesn't.

It's not so simple as that. According to Tillich your disjunct is invalid. God is beyond existence and non-existence.

Did you read the rest of the article? It's quite short. Tillich was no sophist. He was just a very well informed and philosophically astute theologian.

I am not a Christian, but I am tired of people on this site attacking the naive end of Christianity but never really approaching the sophisticated end. It's easy to throw cold water over the cretinists. It's not so easy to dismiss someone like Tillich.

In fact, I think Tillich should be a friend of the JREF, not an enemy:

Tillich stated that since things in existence are corrupt and therefore ambiguous, no finite thing can be (by itself) infinite. All that is possible is for the finite to be a vehicle for revealing the infinite, but the two should never be confused. This leaves religion in the situation where it should not be taken too dogmatically, because of its conceptual and therefore finite and imperfect nature. True religion is that which correctly reveals the infinite, but no religion can ever do so in any way other than through metaphor and symbol. Thus the whole of the Bible should be understood symbolically, and all spiritual and theological knowledge cannot be other than symbol. This idea is used by theologians as an effective counterpoint to religious fundamentalism. Tillich argued that symbols are immensely important to faith because "faith is the state of being ultimately concerned." Faith without symbols is a form of idolatry. It is faith in something finite, something that can be expressed without symbols, and something that is fundamentally less than the ultimate.

From the point of view of the fundies, Tillich is more threatening than the JREF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

 

[Belz...]

It's not so simple as that. According to Tillich your disjunct is invalid. God is beyond existence and non-existence.

Did you read the rest of the article? It's quite short. Tillich was no sophist. He was just a very well informed and philosophically astute theologian.

I'll have time to read it later today (IF I remember it.)

However, that's beside the point. God didn't die and couldn't.

However, that's also beside the point, as my original statement was that actual PEOPLE always make decisions that are, in the end, selfish, while the Jesus story is, at best, a greatly exaggerated myth.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'll have time to read it later today (IF I remember it.)

However, that's beside the point. God didn't die and couldn't.

I never said he could. I said Jesus died.

However, that's also beside the point, as my original statement was that actual PEOPLE always make decisions that are, in the end, selfish, while the Jesus story is, at best, a greatly exaggerated myth.

Makes no difference. I was using it as an example of altruistic behaviour. I don't care whether its historical fact or pure mythology.

 

[Belz...]

I never said he could. I said Jesus died.

Temporarily, at best. The point is he lost nothing in the end.

Makes no difference. I was using it as an example of altruistic behaviour. I don't care whether its historical fact or pure mythology.

I do. If it's a mythical story then it isn't true, and if it isn't true then it's not a good example.

A friend of mine once told me : "Scientists meddle in things they don't understand, and they're always eager to test things without regard to consequences" or something to that effect. I asked him for an example, and he named a movie. How does that help his argument ?

 

[Robin]

Because it involves slightly less typing than "physicalism" and most of the time it doesn't make any difference.

Then why did you say that the difference was important?

No, I meant we are in unknown territory in terms of this debate, because I have no idea how you delimit science.

What limits/defines science?

Science is delimited practically to what is at least indirectly observable or what can be verified by at least indirect observations.

"real" != "physical" unless you are a physicalist.

I am not sure how that is relevant. You refuse to give a definition of what you mean by physical - I don't know of a useful one. So what meaning can this statement have?

None.

But is there something real and non-abstract that science should not even try (for some reason) to study? Can you think of any?

Maybe science can't study some things for practical reasons. But if it can it should.

What can physics do with randomness? Physics describes how X affects Y. When you have randomness you have a situation where Y is being affected but there is no X. You can describe the relationship between X and Y but you cannot describe the relationship between [void] and Y.

Do you really want me to go into the many useful things developed using QM?

In fact you can say quite a bit about the relationship between [void] and Y as long as you know about Y.

And what you can't say about it is useful too because the reasons are important. Science does not depend on determinism. If it did it would not be a useful tool for describing the world.

Yes, do you understand the implications?

Yes, the implication of the part I quoted is that many universes is a result of the maths and therefore empirical.

It may turn out to be wrong, but it is based on the maths.

The many universes conjecture pre-dates the Anthropic Principle by more than a decade. It is held by many who have no time for the Anthropic Principle.

Just because people are smart does not mean they are always right. Look at Kepler and his later work - which was downright woo.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Temporarily, at best.

No, permanently. Jesus of Nazareth is not still walking the Earth. He is dead.

The point is he lost nothing in the end.

Apart from that he's dead.

I do. If it's a mythical story then it isn't true, and if it isn't true then it's not a good example.

Then your capacity for thinking is impaired. Hypothetical examples are perfectly good. What's the difference between a hypothetical example and a mythological example? NONE. As examples, they are all fine.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

In fact you can say quite a bit about the relationship between [void] and Y as long as you know about Y.

Like what???

 

[Belz...]

No, permanently. Jesus of Nazareth is not still walking the Earth. He is dead.

He was RESURRECTED, Geoff.

Then your capacity for thinking is impaired. Hypothetical examples are perfectly good. What's the difference between a hypothetical example and a mythological example? NONE. As examples, they are all fine.

Allright then. The next time someone asks me if I can think of someone flying on his own power, I'll mention Superman.