Modern physics, Heisenberg, and questions of free will

[Kodos]

There are all sorts of people out there willing to die for their god. Look at all the suicide bombers.

Being willing to die for a god is not proof of that god's existence.

[bhlloy]

Unless you are suggesting it's completely impossible to be that passionate about something and be wrong, I'm not sure what relevance that has. People have died for thousands of causes over the years.

Also I'm willing to bet for every Peter there were a hundred Joe's who said "I might get killed for this... screw it. Never heard of this Jesus fella"

[revrew]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Just picking out one point...

There's no evidence for his resurrection. Nothing beyond stories told by his followers (who are hardly impartial observers in the matter). It'd be like my best friends getting together after I was dead and made up a joint story to try to further my legacy. Would you just believe them? No. You'd ask for pictures or video or some sort of proof.


Evidence for the existence of God? Again - it's all stories (a mix of ethical fables and adaptations/explanations of historical events affecting cities/empires/large groups of people) written down either as heresay, or else commonly shared and shaped into a collective narrative by members of a small religious splinter group.

This is a prime example of what I mean by "earnest investigation." The above statements are mistaken and historically uninformed. An open and thorough research of the subject reveals far more tangible evidence.

Again, there are several stories of lawyers, historians, literary experts, etc, who have taken up this investigation under the same assumptions DaddyTorgo is making, only to come out the other side with enough evidence to believe that belief is a reasonable leap to take.

[molson]

There's an infinite number of possible realities of the universe, and yet 99% of the discussion in always about whether a particular religion is "true" or not. I think both sides of that miss the boat completely.

I tend to believe that humans are a higher power than they think they are. There wasn't religion or spirtuality or faith before humans, but there is now. Humans are creating something, and connecting with something. Billions of people of faith are enough proof of that for me.

If we started a spaghetti monster religion tomorrow, if we created stories, laws, a way of thinking, tradition, and we had a good enough connection to human nature that the religion we invited actually connected with millions of people, to the extent it carried on through centuries, through generations, we've created something different than just a philosophy. What we've created exactly, I'm not sure, but I'm certainly open-minded to the idea that it would be "super-natural", or at least, not entirely comprehensible to our brains.

Religion is a flawed human expression of, and attempt to connect with, something we can't quite understand.

Edit:

I think Einstein was on the right track (he was a pretty smart guy):

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I pose three questions:

1) what do you mean by the "supernatural"?

2) can we interact with it?

3) If not how can we know it, if so would it not be natural?

1. Again, I reject the idea that the supernatural is simply the absence of a natural explanation for something. While historically, people have invented supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon, that is not how I define supernatural at all.

I define the supernatural as another state of being that preceded the natural world - in fact, created the natural world - and coexists with it. It is the realm of the divine and the demonic, the Bible calls it "spirit." Just as we exist in time and space in the natural world, we exist in the natural and the supernatural simultaneously. Jesus spoke of this when he said a man must be born "both of water and of spirit" (okay, TMI)

2. Yes, we can interact with it. Prayer, praise, "spiritual warfare" and the miraculous are examples of the interaction between the two.

3. No amount of knowing it, believing it, or proving it makes it natural. It is inherently supernatural, per #1 above.

[revrew]

Sorry, all. As much as I love this conversation, I am leaving today for week-long vacation and must let my end of it go.

Seriously, y'all can go back to talking QM with QS. PM me if you really want to discuss more.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by revrew

This is a prime example of what I mean by "earnest investigation." The above statements are mistaken and historically uninformed. An open and thorough research of the subject reveals far more tangible evidence.

Again, there are several stories of lawyers, historians, literary experts, etc, who have taken up this investigation under the same assumptions DaddyTorgo is making, only to come out the other side with enough evidence to believe that belief is a reasonable leap to take.

far more tangible evidence? can you give me a quick like...point in that direction? (seriously, not trying to be a prick)

[rowech]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

far more tangible evidence? can you give me a quick like...point in that direction? (seriously, not trying to be a prick)

If you're somewhat open-minded about it, I'd suggest the following book:

The Reason For God

You can also find some speeches from him on youtube I believe.

As for my personal view, I have no probelm whatsoever believing in a God. I have no problem believing Jesus lived. I struggle with whether I really believe in the main part of things.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by rowech

If you're somewhat open-minded about it, I'd suggest the following book:

The Reason For God

You can also find some speeches from him on youtube I believe.

As for my personal view, I have no probelm whatsoever believing in a God. I have no problem believing Jesus lived. I struggle with whether I really believe in the main part of things.

That's cool - i'm somewhat open-minded i suppose. or at least interested. i'll check it out.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's cool - i'm somewhat open-minded i suppose. or at least interested. i'll check it out.

He's actually got a very laid back style which I find appealing. He can be pretty funny when you see him speak.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

far more tangible evidence? can you give me a quick like...point in that direction? (seriously, not trying to be a prick)

That's just it, there hasn't been any. Unfortunately, when it comes to religion and trying rationalize with someone that is dedicated to that religion, there's too much of an emotional investment for that person to take a few steps back and actually look for the evidence or see that there is none. I'm not specifically talking about revrew here, just in general.

I can say I saw Big Foot all day long, write tons of books about Big Foot and start up places to worship Big Foot, but, at the end of the day, I've still not produced one iota of evidence for Big Foot's actual existence. People will claim they saw Big Foot and even find pieces of fur as evidence of Big Foot. At the end of the day however, all I did was set up a nice facade, but, I've still provided no evidence for Big Foot's existence no matter how many people believe or how strong people's faith is in Big Foot.




As far as what happened prior to the Big Bang, we don't know. And there's nothing wrong with not knowing. I think the deeper question is: Why is there such a lust for something having to be bigger than us? It's not necessary for us to live our day to day lives.

You take faith or religion out of the equation of life, life will still go on, the world will still revolve around the sun, up will still be up, Al Davis will still be Al Davis, nothing will change.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

That's just it, there hasn't been any. Unfortunately, when it comes to religion and trying rationalize with someone that is dedicated to that religion, there's too much of an emotional investment for that person to take a few steps back and actually look for the evidence or see that there is none. I'm not specifically talking about revrew here, just in general.

I can say I saw Big Foot all day long, write tons of books about Big Foot and start up places to worship Big Foot, but, at the end of the day, I've still not produced one iota of evidence for Big Foot's actual existence. People will claim they saw Big Foot and even find pieces of fur as evidence of Big Foot. At the end of the day however, all I did was set up a nice facade, but, I've still provided no evidence for Big Foot's existence no matter how many people believe or how strong people's faith is in Big Foot.




As far as what happened prior to the Big Bang, we don't know. And there's nothing wrong with not knowing. I think the deeper question is: Why is there such a lust for something having to be bigger than us? It's not necessary for us to live our day to day lives.

You take faith or religion out of the equation of life, life will still go on, the world will still revolve around the sun, up will still be up, Al Davis will still be Al Davis, nothing will change.

Doesn't it say something to you that there is such a lust? As if we are programmed to look for it? Why would we long for things that don't exist? Have you ever longed for something that doesn't exist? Things you might want/need? I know I don't typically wish for things that don't exist.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rowech

Doesn't it say something to you that there is such a lust? As if we are programmed to look for it? Why would we long for things that don't exist? Have you ever longed for something that doesn't exist? Things you might want/need? I know I don't typically wish for things that don't exist.

We are definately programmed for curiosity. We have questions and we want them answered. Sometimes we want the answers so badly that we'll accept unproven answers. If you think we are naive today, think about 1,500 years ago. Somebody wearing a fancy robe or speaking forcefully and articulately probably carried a devastating amount of (believable) weight. Anyway, the bottom line is that everything we know about religion are man made concepts, ideas, writings, and teachings.

Scientifically speaking, it seems pretty unbelievable that all the properties of science just randomly created themselves, so I believe something/somebody created the framework of life and space and time that we belong to. I just don't believe I've had it properly explained. While I'm culturally learned to be a Christian, I've got my hang ups. Particularly the part where some guy (a human) tells me I'm going to burn in hell if I don't believe what he tells me. Um, I don't think so.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by rowech

Doesn't it say something to you that there is such a lust? As if we are programmed to look for it? Why would we long for things that don't exist? Have you ever longed for something that doesn't exist? Things you might want/need? I know I don't typically wish for things that don't exist.

I think it's been pretty convincingly shown by science that our brains look for order and explanations because that's a very useful mode that has allowed us to create science and technology. Science also shows that it is completely divorced from reality - our brains will perceive patterns and narratives where there are none, and thus can be fooled by things such as optical illusions and appearances of order in chaos. I think that is a much more likely explanation of our question for a story behind our existence.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Scientifically speaking, it seems pretty unbelievable that all the properties of science just randomly created themselves, so I believe something/somebody created the framework of life and space and time that we belong to. I just don't believe I've had it properly explained. While I'm culturally learned to be a Christian, I've got my hang ups. Particularly the part where some guy (a human) tells me I'm going to burn in hell if I don't believe what he tells me. Um, I don't think so.

I think this one is fairly easily explained. It is theorized there are infinite universes out there, each configured differently with different rules (maybe light travels at a different speed, maybe gravity is different, etc.). The reason why our universe has all sorts of things that have to be just right for us to exist is because if they weren't just right, we wouldn't be around to ask why everything is just right for us. But we are around because the universe we are familiar with happens to suit lifeforms like ours. If there are infinite universes with different rules governing them, one of them is bound to be configured in a way that favors life coming into existence.

Or something like that.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think this one is fairly easily explained. It is theorized there are infinite universes out there, each configured differently with different rules (maybe light travels at a different speed, maybe gravity is different, etc.). The reason why our universe has all sorts of things that have to be just right for us to exist is because if they weren't just right, we wouldn't be around to ask why everything is just right for us. But we are around because the universe we are familiar with happens to suit lifeforms like ours. If there are infinite universes with different rules governing them, one of them is bound to be configured in a way that favors life coming into existence.

Or something like that.

This is what someone always argues when someone makes the point that Dutch did. I love your lines of --

"fairly easily explained" and then "it's theorized"

The idea of infintie universes is easier to accept than someone designing this whole thing from start to finish? Never buy it. The simplest explanation of our universe to me is that someone/something created it.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by rowech

Doesn't it say something to you that there is such a lust? As if we are programmed to look for it? Why would we long for things that don't exist? Have you ever longed for something that doesn't exist? Things you might want/need? I know I don't typically wish for things that don't exist.

I think what it says is, we are curious animals. However, we are very susceptible to trying to fill in the gaps when there is no reasonable or immediate explanation with flights of fancy or irrational beliefs.

I'm pretty sure you're not talking about, "I wish I could fly" or "I wish I had a time travel machine", but, no, I don't wish for things that don't exist, because they don't exist. It's sometimes fun to fantasize/day dream about things that don't exist, but, it goes no further than that, at least for me. Well, it gives me ideas for what I think would be cool to see in a movie also.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by rowech

The idea of infintie universes is easier to accept than someone designing this whole thing from start to finish? Never buy it. The simplest explanation of our universe to me is that someone/something created it.

Then you step to what created the someone/something that created the universe.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think this one is fairly easily explained. It is theorized there are infinite universes out there, each configured differently with different rules (maybe light travels at a different speed, maybe gravity is different, etc.). The reason why our universe has all sorts of things that have to be just right for us to exist is because if they weren't just right, we wouldn't be around to ask why everything is just right for us. But we are around because the universe we are familiar with happens to suit lifeforms like ours. If there are infinite universes with different rules governing them, one of them is bound to be configured in a way that favors life coming into existence.

Or something like that.

The evidence is pointing towards that being a reasonable explanation, that there are an infinite number of universes with at least 11 dimensions. They (scientists) still have a long way to go on that hypothesis, but, the math keeps adding up and that's why it hasn't been tossed out yet. It's hard enough for me to comprehend the size of the universe and the seemingly infinite amount of space in it, yet, it is very finite. It is measurable. Now imagine trying to comprehend an infinite amount of universes. I can't, I try, but, I can't put it into any kind of relational status to grasp that concept. However, just because I can't comprehend it, it doesn't mean that some deity or force has created it.

This is one of the reasons I'm really interested in the LHC and what it will produce and what new questions it will generate, in addition to what questions it will answer, if any.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I think it's been pretty convincingly shown by science that our brains look for order and explanations because that's a very useful mode that has allowed us to create science and technology. Science also shows that it is completely divorced from reality - our brains will perceive patterns and narratives where there are none, and thus can be fooled by things such as optical illusions and appearances of order in chaos. I think that is a much more likely explanation of our question for a story behind our existence.

Very well said. Reminds me of a Camus quote:

“If you’re not being rational, then you’re being irrational and you won’t be able to understand anything, including the (irrational) universe.”*

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I think what it says is, we are curious animals. However, we are very susceptible to trying to fill in the gaps when there is no reasonable or immediate explanation with flights of fancy or irrational beliefs.

I'm pretty sure you're not talking about, "I wish I could fly" or "I wish I had a time travel machine", but, no, I don't wish for things that don't exist, because they don't exist. It's sometimes fun to fantasize/day dream about things that don't exist, but, it goes no further than that, at least for me. Well, it gives me ideas for what I think would be cool to see in a movie also.

So why then do so many people long/wish for there to be a God on a consistent and daily basis? It's not consistent with human behavior to long/wish for something that doesn't exist on a daily basis like that.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by cartman

Then you step to what created the someone/something that created the universe.

And you face that same dilemma with the Big Bang.

[rowech]

I like the fact that there's a guy with Jedi in his handle talking about things that don't exist.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by rowech

So why then do so many people long/wish for there to be a God on a consistent and daily basis? It's not consistent with human behavior to long/wish for something that doesn't exist on a daily basis like that.

Because, quite simply, we are lazy and want the easiest and simplest answers. What better concept than to create something that is fiction that conveniently fills in those questions for us? We don't have to do any leg work, don't have to prove anything, just sit back and have faith. But also, god, just happens to be what fills that gap now for people. Before the popularity of monotheism, there was the belief in many gods. A god for the sun, the moon, the earth, crops, water, and the list goes on and on. Whether it's one god or a thousand gods, it's still only a means to fill in the gaps. Not knowing isn't a bad thing, but, rather a jumping off point in trying to gain that knowledge.

I like the fact that there's a guy with Jedi in his handle talking about things that don't exist.

Nice!

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Because, quite simply, we are lazy and want the easiest and simplest answers. What better concept than to create something that is fiction that conveniently fills in those questions for us? We don't have to do any leg work, don't have to prove anything, just sit back and have faith. But also, god, just happens to be what fills that gap now for people. Before the popularity of monotheism, there was the belief in many gods. A god for the sun, the moon, the earth, crops, water, and the list goes on and on. Whether it's one god or a thousand gods, it's still only a means to fill in the gaps. Not knowing isn't a bad thing, but, rather a jumping off point in trying to gain that knowledge.



Nice!

I think religion just directs your questions/answers more inward than outward. I can't say that's wrong because inside is what drives us all. Our emotions, desires, thoughts, etc. Who is to say the answer is out in the world somewhere. The questions/answers might be instilled in us from the start.

[rowech]

Another small comment...I don't think Christians just lay back on faith and let it be. Can they? Sure. Do some? Sure. But the vast majority of people I know don't just sit around and be blissful in their faith. I think many would argue that's the worst thing to do. You have to question it from all angles and all positions.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rowech

So why then do so many people long/wish for there to be a God on a consistent and daily basis? It's not consistent with human behavior to long/wish for something that doesn't exist on a daily basis like that.

It's culturally etched into us from the time we are young. We go to church every Sunday (or more), we pray every night (or we're supposed to), we pass by a multitude of churches on the way to work/school. People discuss God everyday. We don't discuss "wishing to fly" everyday. There is no culture obsession with wishing we could fly. So I think that might be a better answer to your question.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by rowech

So why then do so many people long/wish for there to be a God on a consistent and daily basis? It's not consistent with human behavior to long/wish for something that doesn't exist on a daily basis like that.

Fear. They're afraid.

They need for there to be some greater purpose to their lives, or can't deal with the finite nature of them and the fact that once you're dead you become wormfood and that's it.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by rowech

I think religion just directs your questions/answers more inward than outward. I can't say that's wrong because inside is what drives us all. Our emotions, desires, thoughts, etc. Who is to say the answer is out in the world somewhere. The questions/answers might be instilled in us from the start.

I'm not quite following you on this. What answers/questions exactly? Please understand, I don't subscribe to any religion and the thought of one place having all the answers doesn't make sense. If you mean answers/questions in a philosophical way, then you have to choose which philosophy. I do believe that no one person or group has the answer to everything and probably never will and I'm totally ok with that.

Take for instance the popular question of: "Where did I/we come from?". I know where I came from, my mom and dad. The answer is that simple. I don't mean that in a smart assy way. I don't care about the philosophical question of where we came from because it has zero bearing on day to day life. If you want to ask the question from a universal stand point...we come from the same matter that the stars and planets and trees and other animals are made from. We are not special. We just happened to be lucky enough that the environment favored the development of multi celled organisms in this little patch of the universe that we call home. And in actuality, I think that's kind of cool, because, it leaves so much more that is yet to be discovered.

EDIT:

Another small comment...I don't think Christians just lay back on faith and let it be. Can they? Sure. Do some? Sure. But the vast majority of people I know don't just sit around and be blissful in their faith. I think many would argue that's the worst thing to do. You have to question it from all angles and all positions.

I admit I may have over simplified that, but, from an outside point of view (mine), it does look that way to a certain degree. Also, I don't think that the questioning that goes on is the type of questions I think should be asked if you truly do ask from all angles and all positions.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'm not quite following you on this. What answers/questions exactly? Please understand, I don't subscribe to any religion and the thought of one place having all the answers doesn't make sense. If you mean answers/questions in a philosophical way, then you have to choose which philosophy. I do believe that no one person or group has the answer to everything and probably never will and I'm totally ok with that.

Take for instance the popular question of: "Where did I/we come from?". I know where I came from, my mom and dad. The answer is that simple. I don't mean that in a smart assy way. I don't care about the philosophical question of where we came from because it has zero bearing on day to day life. If you want to ask the question from a universal stand point...we come from the same matter that the stars and planets and trees and other animals are made from. We are not special. We just happened to be lucky enough that the environment favored the development of multi celled organisms in this little patch of the universe that we call home. And in actuality, I think that's kind of cool, because, it leaves so much more that is yet to be discovered.

EDIT:

I admit I may have over simplified that, but, from an outside point of view (mine), it does look that way to a certain degree. Also, I don't think that the questioning that goes on is the type of questions I think should be asked if you truly do ask from all angles and all positions.

To answer your 2nd part...I think too many people, once they reach a decision, stop searching/thinking. Like I said, I've gone through so many phases and I believe there is a God, Jesus lived, and after that I'm not sure. At one time, I believed in it all. At one time, I believed in none of it. In my opinion, whatever religion/philosophy you are on you have to constantly re-evaluate....even when you think you know.

For my first part, the things that drive us to being human (aside from basic needs), things like feelings, thoughts, beliefs, experiences, memories, etc. all come from inside us. They're created, developed, and stored there. When we need one of those things for anything, we go inside. We don't find those things on the outside of our being. So why would we look for a higher power on the outside? It only makes sense that the things religion is built around are on the inside so that's where we find a higher power.


As for you coming from your mom and dad...prove it. You can tell me because you remember specifically your moment of birth? Or, is it because others have told you, your entire life, that you were born to your parents?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by rowech

To answer your 2nd part...I think too many people, once they reach a decision, stop searching/thinking. Like I said, I've gone through so many phases and I believe there is a God, Jesus lived, and after that I'm not sure. At one time, I believed in it all. At one time, I believed in none of it. In my opinion, whatever religion/philosophy you are on you have to constantly re-evaluate....even when you think you know.

I agree that they do get to a certain point and bam, that's it. Which I guess is fine as long as they are happy. That makes sense and I've known many people that have done the same thing as you. But, why is it jesus and not muhamad or shiva or buddah or cthulhu? Did you look at some of them or all of them and come to an independent conclusion that jesus was the one or was it because jesus was the one you were brought up with and most familiar? When you re-evaluate your position though, is it based on empirical evidence or just what has the more convincing argument? I've never had a vested interest in any religion. I've been to churches for weddings or because I was staying at a friends house and they go to church. Not one time has anyone said anything there that made me want to rethink my belief structure. But, I also don't have an emotional investment in what those religions teach and have no fear of rejecting or asking difficult questions that someone with a vested interest may be hesitant to ask.

For my first part, the things that drive us to being human (aside from basic needs), things like feelings, thoughts, beliefs, experiences, memories, etc. all come from inside us. They're created, developed, and stored there. When we need one of those things for anything, we go inside. We don't find those things on the outside of our being. So why would we look for a higher power on the outside? It only makes sense that the things religion is built around are on the inside so that's where we find a higher power.

Yes, those things definitely are internal. Those are things manufactured by our brains and the way they are wired. I don't think we are anything special because of that though, just luck of the draw. The best answer I can give to your question, is a question: Why do we even need to look anywhere for a higher power? A higher power is inconsequential to our day to day lives, whether it be from within or without. We can still live even without those emotions. Granted it would probably be boring and unfulfilling without those emotions, but, they are not required for our survival.

As for you coming from your mom and dad...prove it. You can tell me because you remember specifically your moment of birth? Or, is it because others have told you, your entire life, that you were born to your parents?

I'm willing to bet a sandwich that I'm not adopted. Besides what I have been told, there is DNA evidence, actual first account eye witnesses and of course all the contemporary paperwork.

[Mac Howard]

A pity refrew has gone on holiday - it was just getting interesting.

I'll take a stab at the reason why we have a need for God.

The primary drive of all life, including humans, is survival. To survive we need to act in the world and not least to prevent those antagonistic aspects of nature that would destroy us. To act effectively - avoid destruction - we need to understand how nature will respond to our acts. Through understanding we can anticipate the response to action and avoid disaster.

Unfortunately there are many events in the world that we do not understand well enough or are too big for us to defend ourselves against their threats. And that is particularly true of former times. So like the men in the foxhole (no atheists in a foxhole) we create an entity that can oppose destructive forces and pray that this entity will help us survive.

For example - we realised quite early that we need the sun to have things grow and supply food. But we couldn't act on the sun to ensure it came up each morning so we created a sun god and prayed to that to bring the sun each day. We did the same with a rain god. That way we have food, that way we survive - thanks to god answering our prayers. Or so we believed. We even sacrificed other humans to persuade these gods to act on our behalf.

As we have come to understand the world better then our need for gods to help out has diminished and the gods have become God. Our need for god(s) has diminished with increasing understanding and increasing self-reliance. But even today we will pray for God to help out someone with an illness we cannot cure, for people hit by earthquakes or floods and so on. Tragedies we cannot avoid through our own actions. Then we turn to God.

One of the areas where we suffer most, and are often least able to protect ourselves from, is psychologically. We pray for comfort, we pray for people in distress, we pray for God to help us overcome grief - all examples of natural, psychological forces that we are still only partly able to handle ourselves.

God helps us when we can't help ourselves. That, I think, is a key cause of our need of God.

On another point. I think it was rowech who said we need to try harder. In my experience the more I've "tried" - the more I've set out to learn about religion and God - the more unconvinced I have become. None of us met Jesus. We rely on the reports of people from 2000 years ago and those in between. Hence my previous comments about faith and the credibility of the source.

The more I have learnt about these people the less trust I have in what they say. In fact many of those in between are simply charlatans.

I've walked the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem (the path of Jesus from trial to crucifixion) and been on my knees at the alter in the Church of the Resurrection where Jesus is said to have ascended into heaven. And, unfortunately, there's something about it all that spells "fraudulent" and "self-delusion".

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by rowech

There is a heck of a lot of evidence that Jesus was a real person. As to whether all that happened, happened...that's where debate begins. Most people accept he was real though.

There is a lot of evidence that a chap called Jesus existed and was a great teacher who's influence has had a large effect on the world - that he was the son of God is entirely open to debate or there would be a lot less religions and atheists in the world

It should also be noted that MANY myth's from the ancient ages have their basis in fact - there is a historic basis* for the existence of 'King Arthur' for instance, but that doesn't mean many people believe that he's really going to come back from the dead and save England if the country needs him

*There are several actually, sometimes conflicting.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

It should also be noted that MANY myth's from the ancient ages have their basis in fact - there is a historic basis* for the existence of 'King Arthur' for instance, but that doesn't mean many people believe that he's really going to come back from the dead and save England if the country needs him

*There are several actually, sometimes conflicting.

Especially not in the World Cup?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by rowech

I was definitely raised in a Chrstian background. I've gone back and forth whether I believe none, some, or all of what it offers. I've looked at other religions and I, unlike many other Christians, am not above saying that God creates religions that appeal to as many people as possible and he's put enough out there that there's something for everyone...even those who deny his existence. I'm also not unconvinced that things have not proceeded as people have...in other words, he presented himself as multiple Gods early on because that's what made sense to people and slowly things have changed. (I realize many will think it's hogwash...and that's fine)

With all that, have you ever considered you are doing nothing more than bending things to suit your needs and make yourself comfortable? I don't think it's hogwash, but, I do think it is an example as to why there are so many different interpretations of the bible and different christian sects. It's been bent and molded to suit the needs of that person or group of people to make themselves feel comfortable in the way they are doing things with it.

There are many things that make me lean towards Christianity. First, the fact that Jesus talks like I would expect God to talk. His words are simple, understandable, and spoken in lesson/parable form.

I am being a bit pedantic here, but, the things he supposedly said and did, were not recorded until many years after the time he is said to have died. So, you have to wonder if it was the people that were writing the rough drafts of the bible, made those things up. Also knowing that most people could not read, made things in simple, Mother Goose like stories. I'm not saying that all things were bad though because of that, I just think it was more the writers than the source.

Second, there is historical evidence for Jesus. It might not be as much as people would like but anybody who denies his existence is foolish. Even the Koran makes mention of Jesus and does so several times. He is not called the messiah and is considered a high prophet but he's in there several times and is considered holy. (kinda makes you wonder why we're all fighting doesn't it?)

There is very little historical evidence of jesus. No contemporary accounts. Not even from the Romans who supposedly crucified him. You would think, someone that influential to such a large group of people, who was betrayed by one of his buddies, and was a threat to the empire, would have made the 'papers' of his day. If I remember correctly, the koran was written over 600 years after he died. I think the simplest explanation is, they borrowed that name from the bible. By that time, christian and muslim cultures would have surely met and mixed in some way. The reason for the fighting is, everyone thinks their version is right.

Third, kindof a byproduct of the second....so much of the old Testament and the Jewish religion tells of the coming of this person. And so many things that happened did so in exactly the way it was foretold. Now many will say, "well sure...they knew how to write the second part of the story to match the first" and I would agree to a point. However, the amount of scripture, prophecy, etc. that existed would have been almost impossible for a group of average joes to portray perfectly and not be eventually caught as liars and hertics. In the end, he was put to death through fear that he might actually be the one.

The torah, from my understanding, pretty much is the old testament? I do not possess the knowledge of the prophecies to really say whether or not what the success rate on those was, so I defer at the moment.

There are plenty of more things....when I study it and look at it all in one big picture it seems so perfect, so tidy, so beautiful that it becomes difficult not to believe in it wholeheartedly. At least for me...not for everyone I understand...anyway...

In answer to your questino about why we do we need to look for a higher power...we don't...yet we do. That's baffling to me. Everyone does look for it. Even those who say, there is no God, you're still considering it in the back of your mind. And come that last second before death, you better be darn sure you're right.

I'm with you on it being baffling on why people do look for a higher power. I can honestly say, I do not. I am not an agnostic or deist, I simply believe there is no god/gods/higher power. When I die, I die and that's it. My body will be recycled into the earth just like everyone else before me. The only thing that makes me sad is that I will no longer be able to be around my family and friends. That's just it, the last second before my death, I don't need to be right about anything, I just hope someone doesn't get stuck with the bill.

In the end is the proof of your birth any stronger than that of Jesus's? From my side of the computer screen it's not. In 2000 years it won't be.

Speaking from a purely tangible non philosophical point, yes, the proof of my birth is leaps and bounds stronger than it is for jesus. If you stick with the facts and the tangible evidence, behind a computer screen or in person, I am more real than jesus. No one needs faith for me to be alive and real. He may have more fans than me and have more books in print, but, I can at least provide an autograph.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't expect that everyone should think like I do or trying to convince anyone. Quite the contrary, I think people should come to their own conclusion after a thorough and honest look at the evidence. I've come to this position based on the evidence and what science has provided. Looking at those two sources, the likelihood of there being ANY kind of higher power or creator is slim and none and in all actuality, closer to the none side of things. However, even without those two sources, I still would have no desire to seek the ever elusive "something bigger has to be out there" journey. That has never been a driving force in my life. My one question that I would love to have answered before I die is, is there life somewhere else besides earth?

Over all, I am happy, content and satisfied with my life and that's all I wish for other people to be.

Besides, in 2000 years, it won't matter.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

There is a lot of evidence that a chap called Jesus existed and was a great teacher who's influence has had a large effect on the world

Sounds like you may have spoken with the same Jew as I did who said about Moses "if Moses didn't exist then some guy called Moses did". Arguing, of course, that the story is too strong to be complete fiction.

I wouldn't say that there's "a lot" of supporting evidence and ironically the strongest support comes from those the church calls heretics - the Gnostics. They have their own gospels and in many ways they support the biblical gospels though some of the interpretation varies. The Gnostics were the dominant intellectuals in modern Iran/Saudi Arabia/Egypt around the time of Jesus and the growth of Chritianity and absorbed the Jesus story into their religion much as the neoPlatonists in the northern Mediterranean countries did to produce the Catholic church.

Outside of that though there is very little.

Josephus, the Roman/Jewish historian who wrote extensively about the history of the Jewish state from Herod through the Jewish wars ended in 74 AD says virtually nothing. In fact many believe that it was actually nothing and the two mentions have been added by Christian scribes when later copying his books (the oldest we have are from the 12th century). One simply says "the brother of Jesus the Christ" when speaking of a commercial dispute of a man called James and the second a paragraph that is totally out of context with the subject being discussed. The paragraph that precedes the one about Jesus and the paragraph that follows are clearly meant to be contiguous and the Jesus paragraph quite irrelevant to the text.

It also says "Jesus the Christ" which is certainly not what a Jew would say in the first century AD (or today for that matter).

You can download Josephus' writings from the Project Gutenberg.

Incidentally, the Islamic take on Jesus comes from the Gnostics not the church we know.


I don't think though that the lack of publicity is necessarily meaningful. Although today we see the Jesus events are extrememly important, that wasn't necessarily the case at the time of his life. He had very few followers and it's quite possible that he was quite insignificant until later particularly when Paul was evangelising.

It's perfectly possible that in his lifetime he was too insignificant to be news. The zealots (Jewish freedom fighters, if you like) were probably much bigger news.

Christians are certainly mentioned in later Roman writings but Jesus himself is never described in any detail but merely mentioned as the founder and subject of the Christian faith and even this this many years later.

But I think what is there certainly indicates that the story of Jesus has substance and no one can doubt its influence.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I wouldn't say that there's "a lot" of supporting evidence and ironically the strongest support comes from those the church calls heretics - the Gnostics. They have their own gospels and in many ways they support the biblical gospels though some of the interpretation varies. The Gnostics were the dominant intellectuals in modern Iran/Saudi Arabia/Egypt around the time of Jesus and the growth of Chritianity and absorbed the Jesus story into their religion much as the neoPlatonists in the northern Mediterranean countries did to produce the Catholic church.

Outside of that though there is very little.

Part of the problem in determining an historical Jesus is our modern paradigm of interpreting evidence.

It is a very modern approach to decide how influential someone is based on documents. In a way your post is saying: I just did a google search for "jesus" in the year 40 AD and didn't find anything

I think it is almost as valid to work backwards in coming to know an historical jesus. the immediate popularity and influence does offer some evidence supposing the existence of an ancient person. again, i really have no idea if the lack of evidence is due to his non-existence or simply that's not how things worked back then as small minority group.

On the other hand i really do love this bit of dialogue between Jesus and Paul from The Last Temptation of Christ:

Jesus [grabbing Paul by the throat]: I was never crucified, I never came back from the dead. I'm a man, like everybody else. Why are you telling these lies?
Paul: What are you talking about?
Jesus: I'm the son of Mary and Joseph. I'm the one who preached in Galilee. I had followers, we marched on Jerusalem, Pilate condemned me and God saved me.
Paul: No you didn't.
Jesus: Who are you talking about?! Don't try to tell me what happened to me, because I know. I live like a man now. I work, eat, have children. [...] So don't go around telling lies about me. Or I'll tell everybody the truth.
Paul: Look around you. Look at all these people. Look at their faces. Do you see how unhappy they are, how much they're suffering? Their only hope is the resurrected Jesus. I don't care whether you're Jesus or not. The resurrected Jesus will save the world, and that's what matters.
Jesus: Those are lies. You can't save the world by lying.
Paul: I created the truth out of what people needed and what they believed. If I have to crucify you to save the world, I'll crucify you. And if I have to resurrect you, then I'll do that too, whether you like it or not.
Jesus: I won't let you. I'll tell everyone the truth.
Paul: Go ahead. Go on. Tell them now. Who's going to believe you? You started all this; now you can't stop it. All those people who believe me will grab you and kill you.
Jesus: No, that wouldn't happen.
Paul: How do you know? You see, you don't know how much people need God. You don't know how happy He can make them. He can make them happy to do anything. He can make them happy to die, and they'll die. All for the sake of Christ. Jesus Christ. Jesus of Nazareth. The Son of God. The Messiah. Not you. Not for your sake. [...] My Jesus is much more important and much more powerful.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Part of the problem in determining an historical Jesus is our modern paradigm of interpreting evidence.

Yes. There was a tranformation in the 16th century of what constituted justification for "truth". A complete change of mindset articulated by Descartes. Up to that point the Platonic idea, that truth could only come from intellectual investigation and nothing good would come from relying on senses, held. A complete reversal of our approach today.

It resulted in all sorts of nonsense - epitomised by the description of some Catholic investigations as akin to determining how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Today our most inventive intelligences produce science fiction - prior to Descartes they produced theology.

When intellectual investigation is the only source of truth it just comes down as to who can articulate his ideas the most effectively - which is precisely what we have today in politics, law and non-scientific debate in general.

As an aside, I sometimes speculate that if we'd ignored Plato and accepted Democritus then Jesus may have been using a laptop

But that mindset has changed doesn't negate the idea that we should demand some justification when being told something is true even when dealing with antiquity. If we don't demand that then anything goes - as many a cult will illustrate. It isn't only a change - it's essential if we're to have something more reliable.

I enjoyed your dialogue. There's an awful lot of truth in it and illustrates well how Platonism made something viable out of the Jesus story. "It works for me" goes a long way for most people though dubious today as a sign of truth.

[cartman]

One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead: Scientific American

[cartman]

Scientists cast doubt on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

[JediKooter]

Well, as long as they're sure.

[cartman]

Getting Around the Uncertainty Principle: Physicists Make First Direct Measurements of Polarization States of Light

[cartman]

Heisenberg was once pulled over by a policeman for speeding. The cop asked him "Do you know how fast you were going back there?" Heisenberg replied "No, but I knew exactly where I was."

[QuikSand]

So, if this thread is raised from the dead - is that scientific or religious?

[cartman]

They've now seen Schrodinger's cat.

Physics Breakthrough: Quantum Cat State Finally Captured on Camera

[BishopMVP]

Results from the Large Hadron Collider Challenge Physicists' Understanding of the Laws of Nature - The Atlantic

Physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe have explored the properties of nature at higher energies than ever before, and they have found something profound: nothing new.

It’s perhaps the one thing that no one predicted 30 years ago when the project was first conceived.

[cartman]

Negative mass swing beats the uncertainty principle | Ars Technica

[albionmoonlight]

This now seems to be the "all this science I don't understand" thread:

Physicists find we are not living in a computer simulation | Cosmos

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This now seems to be the "all this science I don't understand" thread:

Physicists find we are not living in a computer simulation | Cosmos

Hmm....yeah I definitely don't understand how that debunks the computer simulation hypothesis.

I mean...while I have a painfully superficial understanding of such concepts....couldn't you just postulate a perpetually bigger processor? So if simulating a few electrons "theoretically" requires more atoms than in the the known universe...why does that matter to an exponentially more powerful processor, to quote our dear leader, the likes of which have never been seen?

And what about the notion of targeted detail in such a simulation? In other words, the granularity of what you look at is what is simulated. So if you are looking at the an atom, the simulator need not simulate the atoms you aren't looking at. Nor does it need to simulate the atom at all until you look at it...IF the interactions of atoms are known well enough to simuklate their complex interactions at higher levels. So you get abstraction (e.g. similar to how Virtual Reality & Alternate Reality works in some applications).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This now seems to be the "all this science I don't understand" thread: