Faith, Truth & the Absolutes - the myth

[Plato]

It sounds like the original writer of the Thread gnostic is saying a couple of things unless I'm wrong. The first is, that there are no absolutes, that everything is 'subjective' and 'relative', uncertain and a 'grey area'. This I most strongly disagree with, and since you seem to be a science minded type guy, let me put it to you this way.........
You would agree that we exist in a 'binary universe' where everything in it (everything) can be expressed by a series of 0's (zeros) and 1's (ones), this is the basis of all computer/ micro chip technology and thought, language, right? We know too, that all matter in the universe (all) is made of atoms, +positive protons exactly balanced by -negative electrons, that this is the basis of all matter. That in basic physics for every action there is and must be an equal and opposite reaction, and in advanced physics all 'matter' must be and is balanced by equal 'anti matter'.
Everything in our universe, everything in reality...matter, energy, thought, movement only has (2) ways to go...a zero or a one, a plus or minus, a right or wrong, a black or white...So, I'd say 'nothing' in our reality is 'relative' or completly subjective or a 'grey area'. That in fact 'everything' in our reality can only be one of two possible absolute truths. (Whether we know what those truths are is a whole different story, of course).
In terms of religion...God either exists or he doesn't exist....What the Bible reports is either accurate or inaccurate...There are no other possiblities. All propositions you can thing of only have 2 outcomes....we're only allowed to choose between 2 absolute truths...flip a coin, it's either heads or tails, you'll either buy a new car this week or you won't, you'll pass todays school test or fail it etc. etc. for 'everything' you can think of.....
So, I have no problem with someone saying they believe in the absolute truth God exists because all things being equal, they have an exactly 50% chance of being right (they have a 50% of being wrong too).
The second part of the post...
When you say whichever of the allowed 2 absolute truths they pick is only their 'opinion' I completely agree. They could be entirely wrong and all opinion by definition must be 'subjective'... but that's not the same as saying we're not all limited to choosing between only 2 absolute truths...God exists...God doesn't exist.
As an agnostic your simply saying...you decline to choose at this time...or that your not sure which of the 2 to choose, so your witholding your choice at this time, keeping an open mind, considering new evidence that might come along etc....right?

 

[sojourner]

The apostles' "belief" was not subjective.

It spread from there with good cause.

The miracles and empirical evidence for Christ is not subjective either. Seeing is believing.

Or is believing seeing? People have a great propensity to see what they want to see.

 

[McBell]

Are you even suggesting that Jesus could be a myth? Are you suggesting the same about the Roman Empire, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Henry VII, etc.? Then why make such a case? To leave room for doubt and room for ignoring the message?

I am lost?

All the empirical evidence that has transpired since the Resurrection has validated Jesus Christ's reality and divinity.

Please present this empirical evidence you claim exists.

Or are you once again going to make super bold unsubstantiated claims and run tail tucked when asked to present?

 

[thau]

Please present this empirical evidence you claim exists.

Or are you once again going to make super bold unsubstantiated claims and run tail tucked when asked to present?

Let's be clear: I will get to it eventually, but when I do, almost assuredly you will not be in agreement. Still I will maintain it is proof and you will say ho-hum or something odd.

My empirical evidence is not Jesus on camera visiting some pious soul in the Bronx, nor is it someone taken to heaven who brings back the video.

It is a number of factual accounts that hugely suggest Christian miracle, along with a number of other considerations -- where when you put it all together it is your proverbial "it's a duck' can be the only answer.

Until then--- sorry to dismay you by my keep referencing this evidence which I have never posted here, but did post about 100 different times on Slate.com in years past.

Incidentally, your little black bug is an annoying presence. Creepy even. :areyoucra

 

[mycorrhiza]

My empirical evidence is not Jesus on camera visiting some pious soul in the Bronx, nor is it someone taken to heaven who brings back the video.

It is a number of factual accounts that hugely suggest Christian miracle, along with a number of other considerations -- where when you put it all together it is your proverbial "it's a duck' can be the only answer.

Scientists have never been able to study any miracles that haven't turned out to be hoaxes and there is no empirical proof of the existence of Christian miracles as far as I know.

Could you show me a scientific report, medical journal, etc that proves the factuality of miracles? I have been trying to find any medical records proving that prayer can grow body parts back and that people can raise the dead, but so far, no luck. A lot of stories, but never any concrete evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Are you even suggesting that Jesus could be a myth?

I think his miracles reported in the gospels could be nothing more than a myth.

All the empirical evidence that has transpired since the Resurrection has validated Jesus Christ's reality and divinity.

You really don't know EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE mean do you? I'd suggest you look it up.

There is no way we can test the claims of Jesus' miracles to be real. We have no way to test the validity of the resurrection. And we certainly have no way to test Jesus' "divinity", which you call it.

The claims you have made, are really based on your interpretations of the gospels (in another word, your opinion) and your faith, not on empirical evidences.

The only (literary) evidences we have to Jesus' historicity, other then Christian records in the gospels, epistles and writings of the Early Church Fathers, is one very brief mention of Jesus' brother - James - by the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. Other than that, Josephus write of nothing of Jesus' miracles or resurrection.

There are no physical or archaeological evidences of Jesus.

 

[thau]

I think his miracles reported in the gospels could be nothing more than a myth.



You really don't know EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE mean do you? I'd suggest you look it up.

There is no way we can test the claims of Jesus' miracles to be real. We have no way to test the validity of the resurrection. And we certainly have no way to test Jesus' "divinity", which you call it.

The claims you have made, are really based on your interpretations of the gospels (in another word, your opinion) and your faith, not on empirical evidences.

The only (literary) evidences we have to Jesus' historicity, other then Christian records in the gospels, epistles and writings of the Early Church Fathers, is one very brief mention of Jesus' brother - James - by the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. Other than that, Josephus write of nothing of Jesus' miracles or resurrection.

There are no physical or archaeological evidences of Jesus.

Yes, I know what empirical means. If you will notice, I spoke of the miracles that have transpired since the Resurrection, not before. In other words, I am speaking of miracles that very much could have been meticulously documented or even photographed or examined in a lab. The Shroud of Turin, for example, is I maintain a scientifically verified phenomenon that could never ever have been forged or created in the Middle Ages. Not even today, as it were. Once you understand all of the qualities of that cloth and what has been found on it via microscopic observation, you are looking at the empirical evidence of something totally beyond nature. (But I won't go into details here.)

 

[mycorrhiza]

Yes, I know what empirical means. If you will notice, I spoke of the miracles that have transpired since the Resurrection, not before. In other words, I am speaking of miracles that very much could have been meticulously documented or even photographed or examined in a lab. The Shroud of Turin, for example, is I maintain a scientifically verified phenomenon that could never ever have been forged or created in the Middle Ages. Not even today, as it were. Once you understand all of the qualities of that cloth and what has been found on it via microscopic observation, you are looking at the empirical evidence of something totally beyond nature. (But I won't go into details here.)

If the miracles did take place, they could very well have been documented. What I find odd is that not a single case of someone being healed, for example, has been proven. If the miracles did happen, then they should have been well documented, as they would show that Christianity is correct. If they never were examined and reproduced, there's no empirical evidence.

While the Shroud has yet to be fully explained by science, it isn't proven to be a miracle either. It could very well have been created under natural circumstances or could have been forged. There are many possible explanations of how it was made.
"Not knowing" doesn't imply "impossible".

If it is a miracle, who says that it's a Christian one? The shroud doesn't depict Jesus, even though it looks like the western depictions of him. So that it has yet to be explained doesn't mean that it is a Christian miracle. It could just as well have been created by aliens or by a technique that has yet to be tested or by a combination of different techniques.

 

[thau]

If the miracles did take place, they could very well have been documented. What I find odd is that not a single case of someone being healed, for example, has been proven. If the miracles did happen, then they should have been well documented, as they would show that Christianity is correct. If they never were examined and reproduced, there's no empirical evidence.

While the Shroud has yet to be fully explained by science, it isn't proven to be a miracle either. It could very well have been created under natural circumstances or could have been forged. There are many possible explanations of how it was made.
"Not knowing" doesn't imply "impossible".

If it is a miracle, who says that it's a Christian one? The shroud doesn't depict Jesus, even though it looks like the western depictions of him. So that it has yet to be explained doesn't mean that it is a Christian miracle. It could just as well have been created by aliens or by a technique that has yet to be tested or by a combination of different techniques.

Sorry I do not have time for you right now to address your legitimate questions or comments here. I go back and forth guiltily from internet to my work.

However, for now I must say I find this often used rebuttal to be less than compelling: "Not knowing" doesn't imply "impossible".

I say it does. Only if you reject reasonableness can you make that claim. There are certain phenomena that when all natural law is applied, all human experience and intelligence is applied, and the nature of the event including any connections to other historical facts or relations is applied --- there logically and ultimately comes a truth that is simply evident, i.e. the occurrence was of supernatural origin. IOW, impossible for man or nature to produce or explain.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Except that such an explanation could once have been applied to the stars in the sky, the water cycle, the vast majority of diseases and so much more. To say 'I don't know' is merely to acknowledge your ignorance, to do so is to leave the door open for insight, to learn and grow as an individual, as a society and as a species; to instead say 'Because I don't know it must be' is to refuse to acknowledge your ignorance, to close that door.

 

[thau]

Except that such an explanation could once have been applied to the stars in the sky, the water cycle, the vast majority of diseases and so much more. To say 'I don't know' is merely to admit ignorance, to admit ignorance is to leave the door open for insight, to learn and grow as an individual, as a society and as a species; to instead say 'Because I don't know it must be' is to close that door.

Who is it you are addressing these comments to, it's not clear?

I am not addressing that which we do not know, I am addressing that which is known. It is based on what has been revealed about Christ and His words of the Father and heaven, that we can be assured these other signs are from God and not from some totally unknown source or entity. This is where skeptics say we believe without reason and I say it is they who avoid applying reason.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It was a response to your comments about not knowing versus impossibility, and the suggestion that it was indeed impossible; before I continue let me state that as an Ignostic (well more or less) I am no Atheist, I do however strongly hold to an Agnostic perspective on the certainty of knowledge; for that reason, to determine a cause with so little evidence save for itself is uncertain to just about any agnostic (or any judge or historian for that matter, or anyone concerned with establishing the reliability of a claim)

 

[work in progress]

I find that it is strange that (religious/theistic) people think that FAITH and BELIEF in god or gods can be ABSOLUTE or be the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

I find that BELIEF to be "subjective", rather than "objective". BELIEF is like OPINION. BELIEF and OPINION are also like taste in music or taste in beauty. One person may like country-western music, but I don't like it at all. With such difference, there can be no absolutes.

I want to deal with the point about belief and truth...which I assume you mean something akin to knowledge, rather than go into how this applies to theology debates about gods. It seems to me that belief is more than just being subjective, it is also the result of mental processes that are outside of our conscious awareness. A couple of years ago I picked up an interesting book on the psychology of belief: Amazon.com: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not (9780312541521): Robert Burton: Books
In brief, our feelings of certainty, which lead us to believe or disbelieve, are caused by neurochemical sensations, and not the byproduct of some rational process towards finding truth. Our determinations of truth and knowledge can closely follow observable facts or have nothing to do with reality. With that in mind, we have no way to determine any sort of absolute truth, and the best we can do is define objective as being those things which are agreed upon by other minds.

 

[gnostic]

The Shroud of Turin, for example, is I maintain a scientifically verified phenomenon that could never ever have been forged or created in the Middle Ages. Not even today, as it were. Once you understand all of the qualities of that cloth and what has been found on it via microscopic observation, you are looking at the empirical evidence of something totally beyond nature. (But I won't go into details here.)

Nothing with the Turin Shroud has been conclusive proven one way or the other. There are too many conflicting data. And there no way to prove that this image or the shroud itself is that of Jesus himself.

Even if it the shroud was said to be of 1st century CE, do you know how many people die in that century in Judaea from being crucified?

Thousands. They were due to quelling rebellions, executions of prisoners and war that destroyed Jerusalem. Jesus being crucified was hardly a unique form of execution. There is no way to know for certain, whose shroud it was. It could be that of a murderer or captive of rebellious Jew? You can't put a name to the shroud, and it is foolish to so when people haven't conclude when or where the shroud originated? Is it a forgery or not?

In any case, I do find it pretty morbid for the churches to collect and revere body parts of supposed saints?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Originally the collection of such remains would likely have been as simple as wishing to prevent their desecration, they would have been treated with respect - somehow that turned into (almost) worship.

Such articles and the feelings and stories attached to them evolve over time, the result being that the attitudes of people and even issues of faith regarding them alter.

 

[1AOA1]

I find that it is strange that (religious/theistic) people think that FAITH and BELIEF in god or gods can be ABSOLUTE or be the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Faith is parts of the truth but not all.

 

[Sgloom]

faith has nothing to do with truths, just beliefs, there may be truth to it, but we will never know it, thats why its faith. i see nothing wrong with faith, i have faith in things non religious, i dont see anything wrong with religious faith either, i just dont have any of that, and i would never confuse it with truths, its just what people believe to be truths.

 

[mycorrhiza]

However, for now I must say I find this often used rebuttal to be less than compelling: "Not knowing" doesn't imply "impossible".

I say it does. Only if you reject reasonableness can you make that claim. There are certain phenomena that when all natural law is applied, all human experience and intelligence is applied, and the nature of the event including any connections to other historical facts or relations is applied --- there logically and ultimately comes a truth that is simply evident, i.e. the occurrence was of supernatural origin. IOW, impossible for man or nature to produce or explain.

I'm sorry, but you're using the God of the gaps fallacy. If scientists had that attitude, then nothing would have been discovered. We can't give up and say "God did it" just because we don't know what caused something. Instead, we should try and figure out what caused it, even if it may take a long time. We're not perfect beings that hold all knowledge of the Universe, we're just smart apes.

We don't know how to cure some diseases, does that mean that it's impossible to cure these diseases even in the future?

I'm not saying that it's impossible that the Shroud of Turin is a miracle done by the Abrahamic God, just that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

 

[thau]

I'm sorry, but you're using the God of the gaps fallacy. If scientists had that attitude, then nothing would have been discovered. We can't give up and say "God did it" just because we don't know what caused something. Instead, we should try and figure out what caused it, even if it may take a long time. We're not perfect beings that hold all knowledge of the Universe, we're just smart apes.

We don't know how to cure some diseases, does that mean that it's impossible to cure these diseases even in the future?

I'm not saying that it's impossible that the Shroud of Turin is a miracle done by the Abrahamic God, just that we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

But I say you, or science, does jump to conclusions. You conclude that nothing can ever be determined to be of supernatural orign. And I am saying, by applying knowledge, wisdom, logic and reason you most certainly can come to a reasoned truth that certain phenomena are most certainly of supernatural origin. For man to stay on the fence and insist "we can never know," that allows the moral relativism to reign supreme and render man unaccountable to anything or anyone except his own wishes.

 

[McBell]

But I say you, or science, does jump to conclusions. You conclude that nothing can ever be determined to be of supernatural orign. And I am saying, by applying knowledge, wisdom, logic and reason you most certainly can come to a reasoned truth that certain phenomena are most certainly of supernatural origin. For man to stay on the fence and insist "we can never know," that allows the moral relativism to reign supreme and render man unaccountable to anything or anyone except his own wishes.

Ah, so the only real difference is that one group claims that their wishes are actually the wishes of god...