Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The marriage contract is just that - a contract protecting both parents, giving inheritance rights to the TWO replacement children, and allows the government to collect a percentage of the parent's earnings, so as to raise and educate the offspring, while the married couple go back to their SINGLE lives.

If something happened to that pair's children, the marriage document would let the government know whom to call back in to produce more replacement children, keeping the population from declining further. LOL!

Well how about this....can a man be married and unmarried at the same time???


Don't get me wrong, you can go back to your single "life", but you are still married

 

[idav]

Then the burden of proof is on the naturalist to explain how consciousness can come from unconsciousness. If God doesn't exist and the universe is started with a big bang, then there would be nothing but dead matter. There wouldn't be consciousness floating around the cosmos. You can't get consciousness from matter that isn't conscious.

The burden of proof is on dualists who insist on something other than the brain. The brain, that much we do know. A monist like myself might argue a rudimentary awareness in all existence but full fledged consiousness is dualism. Why insist god be dual like you think humans are?

 

[idav]

According to the narrative in the book of Acts, the disciples themselves took it literally.



Jesus never existed as a person in history and is just a character in a parable?

Paul took it literally to the point of thinking he would physically be reborn and no longer sin. He didnt get what he was after. Jesus always said not to take what he says literally that he talked in parables. Apostles disagreed on Pauls take and we will never know how much.

Jesus and his miracles fit best as parables. Letting the blind see and people being reborn of spirit.

Now people have been waiting for a literal resurrection. And jesus just says I will be back, very suspicious that last part. He didnt fullfill what was promised or there is some other son of man.

 

[Ingledsva]

God accepts human sacrifices. 2 Sam 21:8,9, 14

Um, that is not a human sacrifice. The people that were killed were executed before the Lord, which is not the same as sacrificing a human life.

That is actually debatable when you look at the wording in the Hebrew.


However, we do know that they actually had human sacrifice to God.


Leviticus 27: 28, 29 Notwithstanding NO devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, BOTH OF MAN and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord.

29 – None devoted, which shall be devoted of men shall be redeemed; BUT SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.


**


Exodus 22: 29 - Thou shalt not delay TO OFFER the FIRST of thy ripe
fruits, and of thy liquors: THE FIRSTBORN OF THY SONS SHALT THOU GIVE UNTO ME.

OFFER 5927 alah – Cause to rise-up by burning – a burnt offering.


**

Mic 6:6 Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?

Mic 6:7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?


**

Judges 11: 30 – 40

11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord,…….11:31 Then it shall be , that WHOMSOEVER cometh out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be THE LORD’S, and I will OFFER “IT” UP FOR A BURNT OFFERING. 32-33.

34 And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house and behold, his daughter came out to meet him. 35 ….when he saw her he rent his clothes….for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I CANNOT GO BACK. 36-38

39- And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, WHO DID WITH HER ACCORDING TO HIS VOW which he had vowed, and she knew no man. AND IT WAS A CUSTOM IN ISRAEL


**

There are several books on this subject.


THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF THE BELOVED SON
The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity Jon D. Levenson

"Tracing from Canaanite to Christian thought the humiliations, deaths, and exaltations of sons and heirs, Levenson intrigues, astounds, and undermines many dearly held theological beliefs. This tour de force offers fascinating discussions of such matters as child sacrifice and the deity's right to the first-born; the paschal sacrifice and other Israelite rituals as symbolic substitutes for the son and heir."--A. J. Levine, Choice


From Catholic Encyclopedia -"The custom of causing one's children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezech. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (IV Kings, xvi, 3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremias (Jerem. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet [IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity …"


“In the week's Torah portion, G-d says about the Mishkan( Tabernacle) "V'neekdash Bichvodi", I will be made holy in my honor (loosely translated). The Talmud says to read it that "I will be made holy through my honored ones" referring to Aaron's 2 son's who were killed. Their death was part of the dedication of the Mishkan…”

Hypermail Torah-Forum Archive: Re: Human Sacrifice

**

Eze 20:26 And - I - polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.

Jewish Ritual Murder, a Historical Investigation, by Hellmut Schramm, Ph.D


*

 

[Ingledsva]

As an avid Science Fiction reader, I can.


I see a future where people whom are living far longer, and both make plenty of money to live on, hence no need for the patriarchal trappings of marriage, leads to a population decline - - (already actually happening in Northern Countries.)


The government steps in and says 25 is the perfect parent age, finds you a compatible mate, and calls you both to the petri dish.


The marriage contract is just that - a contract protecting both parents, giving inheritance rights to the TWO replacement children, and allows the government to collect a percentage of the parent's earnings, so as to raise and educate the offspring, while the married couple go back to their SINGLE lives.


If something happened to that pair's children, the marriage document would let the government know whom to call back in to produce more replacement children, keeping the population from declining further. LOL!

Well how about this....can a man be married and unmarried at the same time???


Don't get me wrong, you can go back to your single "life", but you are still married

They are single, the marriage contract is just a legal form for the government, and protection of the children.


The wording of a contract is what we make it.


They were single, and remain single. A contract has been signed to allow the government money to raise the children, and so the children have inheritance rights.


Our new marriage contract does not assume living together, raising the children, or having sex with no others, - or for that matter, that they will ever lay eyes on each other; they used a petri dish.


*

 

[Parsimony]

Then the burden of proof is on the naturalist to explain how consciousness can come from unconsciousness. If God doesn't exist and the universe is started with a big bang, then there would be nothing but dead matter. There wouldn't be consciousness floating around the cosmos. You can't get consciousness from matter that isn't conscious.

Anyone who says that "consciousness arises due to x" has a burden of proof on them. If I say it arises due to natural causes, the burden is on me. If I say it arises due to supernatural causes, the burden is just as much on me. To say that a view is wrong because one does not understand how it could be right is the argument from ignorance.

If God doesn't exist, then the naturalist would have to explain how life could have originated from nonlife, and how consciousness came from unconsciousness.

Except that I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist. I'm arguing that the mechanism that brings consciousness into existence remains unknown: it could be either natural or supernatural.

But it is enough to say that naturalism may be false. Even if the mind and brain are identical, that would not be a defeater of theism. But if the mind and the brain and not identical, then that would be a defeater of naturalism, and that is all I need.

Once again, "may" and "if" are terms of uncertainty. At any rate, consciousness as an emergent property of the physical brain is compatible with theism.

But this world may be one of the worlds at which it is true.

Or it might not be. More uncertainty.

Makes no sense. Something cannot be the same and different at the same time.

That's kind of the point. Electric and magnetic fields are the same but if I was ignorant of that fact I could propose a world where one exists and the other does not. Due to my state of ignorance, I would think that it is a possible world even though in reality it is not a possible world. I would unknowingly be saying that one single thing is two different things.

Yet, you can imagine it. If you can imagine it, then it is possible. If you can't, then it isn't possible.

Unless I'm in a state of ignorance where I think something is possible when it actually is not. When such is the case, I may believe that my imagined world is possible, but it actually is not.

Ok, how about this; can a man be married and unmarried at the same time? Yes or no

Nope.

 

[viole]

Provide sources of individuals that claim that they saw Zeus in history.

Well, the books of Homer are full of apparitions of deities in various forms and shapes.

The second king of Rome also had personal relationships with them. Rome would have never acquired the power it did without the help of Jupiter. The romans were His elected people. He even helped them to conquer and subjugate nations with lesser Gods. Including israel.

Greek mythology is not verifiable beyond Ancient Greek. Christianity actually has history surrounding it. Actual people...actual events...from both skeptics and believers. Not even close in comparison.

Pagan beliefs have a long story of believers and skeptics as well. Basically all Roman Emperors believed in them. Like the rest of the citizens.

Do you think it was considered mythology at that time?

Socrates has been executed for being blasphemous, for instance.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Anyone who says that "consciousness arises due to x" has a burden of proof on them.

Right, and since the naturalists/atheist maintain that there is no god, then the only way they can explain consciousness and the origin of life is through science...so therefore the burden of proof is on them to explain how inanimate matter comes to life and begins to think.

Meanwhile, theists maintain that since the universe began to exist, then it follows logically that the effect can only be explained by an external source that could is not itself of material substance. So even if consciousness was explained by the brain and they were identical, both the brain and consciousness would owe its existence to the same external source that caused the universe.

If I say it arises due to natural causes, the burden is on me. If I say it arises due to supernatural causes, the burden is just as much on me. To say that a view is wrong because one does not understand how it could be right is the argument from ignorance.

Well, since I am not arguing that just because you can't explain it you are therefore wrong, then the above statement is irrelevant.

I am saying that since you can't explain it, then there is no reason for you to believe it is true, unless you have another axe to grind. Me, on the other hand, I have reasons to believe that the mind and the brain are not identical...and conscious states are not physical states. If conscious were physical, then I would expect someone to be able to look into my brain and tell me what I am thinking. If my thoughts are physical, then you should be able to tell me what I am thinking by looking in to my brain, since the neurons that are floating through my brain are carrying the thought.

But you can't, all you can do is show a corrolation, but corrolations doesn't necessarily suggest identity.

Except that I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist. I'm arguing that the mechanism that brings consciousness into existence remains unknown: it could be either natural or supernatural.

And as I said before, if you start off with a big bang, there are no conscious thoughts floating around in space without a person to retain the thoughts. So thoughts are not independent of the person, so if you have dead matter floating around space, how will you reach the point of self-awareness and personhood from things that are not self aware and non-personal?

Once again, "may" and "if" are terms of uncertainty.

I was obviously using those terms as a way to compare different realities under certain circumstances. So I don't know where you are getting this "uncertainty" business from.

At any rate, consciousness as an emergent property of the physical brain is compatible with theism.

No it isn't. Under theism, consciousness comes from consciousness, namely, a consciouss God. If you start off with a consciouss God who, by his power, allows inanimate objects to become consciouss, then this is conscioussness from conscioussness. So what are you talking about here?

Or it might not be. More uncertainty.

The certainty is that mental states are not physical states.

That's kind of the point. Electric and magnetic fields are the same but if I was ignorant of that fact I could propose a world where one exists and the other does not.

Then you'd be drawing a conclusion based on a false premise and therefore your conception would not accurately reflect reality even in the possible world you are conceiving.

Due to my state of ignorance, I would think that it is a possible world even though in reality it is not a possible world. I would unknowingly be saying that one single thing is two different things.

Then as I said, you'd be wrong.

Nope.

So basically, logical absurdities cannot even be thought of, much less happen, right?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, the books of Homer are full of apparitions of deities in various forms and shapes.

I am asking did anyone ever claimed that they saw these deities in reality? Did they speak to the deities and the deities speak back? Did they eat with them? Did they walk with him? Yes or no.

The second king of Rome also had personal relationships with them. Rome would have never acquired the power it did without the help of Jupiter. The romans were His elected people. He even helped them to conquer and subjugate nations with lesser Gods. Including israel.

Not even close.

Pagan beliefs have a long story of believers and skeptics as well. Basically all Roman Emperors believed in them. Like the rest of the citizens.

What believers and skeptics ever saw the gods that they worshipped? That is my question.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I wonder, honestly. Joseph Smith claimed to see God. His followers claimed to see all kinds of things, resurrected beings and angels running all over the place. Oh yeah, some miracles like healings. So why aren't you a Mormon?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I wonder, honestly. Joseph Smith claimed to see God. His followers claimed to see all kinds of things, resurrected beings and angels running all over the place. Oh yeah, some miracles like healings. So why aren't you a Mormon?

And Joseph Smith also believed that God was not always the Supreme being and also has a body of flesh and bones. This contradicts what we already know about the universe and is in fact absolutely false. So if he can't even get the nature of God part right, then why should I believe him?

 

[outhouse]

What believers and skeptics ever saw the gods that they worshipped? That is my question.

ME!


I believe yellow ducky created everything exactly as the bible said, but with yellow ducky instead of Yahweh.

I have seen yellow ducky many many times. Daily actually.

 

[outhouse]

then why should I believe him?

NO

the question is WHY should we believe YOU! :slap:

 

[Parsimony]

Right, and since the naturalists/atheist maintain that there is no god, then the only way they can explain consciousness and the origin of life is through science...so therefore the burden of proof is on them to explain how inanimate matter comes to life and begins to think.

And as I said before, if you start off with a big bang, there are no conscious thoughts floating around in space without a person to retain the thoughts. So thoughts are not independent of the person, so if you have dead matter floating around space, how will you reach the point of self-awareness and personhood from things that are not self aware and non-personal?

A person millenia ago could use a similar argument to "prove" that lightning requires direct supernatural causation and cannot arise from the laws written into nature. At that time, no one could explain how lightning could arise naturally so it "must" have been supernatural. Same thing with consciousness. It might be possible for it to arise naturally, or it might not be.

Meanwhile, theists maintain that since the universe began to exist, then it follows logically that the effect can only be explained by an external source that could is not itself of material substance. So even if consciousness was explained by the brain and they were identical, both the brain and consciousness would owe its existence to the same external source that caused the universe.

That last sentence there. That's pretty much what I've been saying this whole time. Both could be identical and both could owe their existence to God.

Well, since I am not arguing that just because you can't explain it you are therefore wrong, then the above statement is irrelevant.

You've pretty much been saying that inanimate matter cannot give rise to consciousness because we cannot explain how it can. Isn't that about the size of it?

I am saying that since you can't explain it, then there is no reason for you to believe it is true, unless you have another axe to grind.

If lighting could not be explained naturally by the ancients, then there would be no reason for them to believe that it is not supernatural, right? Yet they were wrong. It would have been the safer bet for them to simply say "we don't know" and wait until further evidence turned up.

Me, on the other hand, I have reasons to believe that the mind and the brain are not identical...and conscious states are not physical states. If conscious were physical, then I would expect someone to be able to look into my brain and tell me what I am thinking. If my thoughts are physical, then you should be able to tell me what I am thinking by looking in to my brain, since the neurons that are floating through my brain are carrying the thought.

We can.

But you can't, all you can do is show a corrolation, but corrolations doesn't necessarily suggest identity.

Nor am I saying that it is definitely so. Only that it is possibly so.

I was obviously using those terms as a way to compare different realities under certain circumstances. So I don't know where you are getting this "uncertainty" business from.

Because there is no certainty that we live in one of the worlds where mind and body are different. It is only possible, it is not certain.

No it isn't. Under theism, consciousness comes from consciousness, namely, a consciouss God. If you start off with a consciouss God who, by his power, allows inanimate objects to become consciouss, then this is conscioussness from conscioussness. So what are you talking about here?

(1) God creates the Universe.
(2) God puts laws into the Universe which allow consciousness to arise from unconscious matter.
(3) Therefore consciousness arising from unconscious matter is due to God.

The certainty is that mental states are not physical states.

See link above.

Then you'd be drawing a conclusion based on a false premise and therefore your conception would not accurately reflect reality even in the possible world you are conceiving.

The same could be true of consciousness. If mind and body are one, then using the argument to "prove" that they are different would be based on a false premise as well.

Then as I said, you'd be wrong.

Exactly. Just because I can imagine something to be possible doesn't mean that it actually is possible.

So basically, logical absurdities cannot even be thought of, much less happen, right?

Yes, but there are some things that can be logically conceived of that are prevented from happening in reality due to other factors. I can conceive of a cricket that can hop faster than the speed of light or a rock that releases an inexhaustible stream of energy when it is tickled. However, my ability to conceive of these things doesn't allow them to exist because the laws of physics forbid their existence.

Back to Plantinga's argument. It seems to have the general form of:

"If A is the same as B, then all things true of A must be true of B and vice-versa. If A can exist when B doesn't, then there is at least one thing true of A that is not true of B. If this is the case, then A is not B."

Replace A and B with "mind" and "body" and we get his specific argument:

"If the mind is the same as the body, then all things true of the mind must be true of the body and vice-versa. If the mind can exist when the body doesn't, then there is at least one thing true of the mind that is not true of the body. If this is the case, then the mind is not body."

However, I can make different substitutions for A and B to "prove" that the serial killer David Berkowitz is not the Son of Sam:

"If David Berkowitz is the same as the Son of Sam, then all things true of Berkowitz must be true of the Son of Sam and vice-versa. If Berkowitz can exist when the Son of Sam doesn't, then there is at least one thing true of Berkowitz that is not true of the Son of Sam. If this is the case, then the David Berkowitz is not the Son of Sam."

 

[brokensymmetry]

And Joseph Smith also believed that God was not always the Supreme being and also has a body of flesh and bones. This contradicts what we already know about the universe and is in fact absolutely false. So if he can't even get the nature of God part right, then why should I believe him?

So now you are assuming a bunch of stuff about God's nature, based on what exactly?

That doesn't address my argument anyway. Joseph Smith's followers said they saw stuff, *a lot* of crazy stuff. Angels, miracles of all kinds and so on. How is this possible?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So now you are assuming a bunch of stuff about God's nature, based on what exactly?

It is not much of an assumption, it is a statement based on what I know. I know the universe began to exist, and I conclude logically that if the universe began to exist, then the universes origins cannot be made up of material, yet on the Mormon view, god is material. So Joseph Smith's view is contrary to what we already know.

That doesn't address my argument anyway. Joseph Smith's followers said they saw stuff, *a lot* of crazy stuff. Angels, miracles of all kinds and so on. How is this possible?

This does address your argument. If a concept of a particular god is internally incoherent, then such a god doesn't exist, and cannot appear in visions. Plain and simple. A god that was once a man and existed within time is contrary to what we know about a universe that began to exist at some point in the finite past.

The Christian God, on the other hand, is completely in line with what we know regarding time...causal relations, and a material universe.

 

[idav]

The Christian God, on the other hand, is completely in line with what we know regarding time...causal relations, and a material universe.

So is deism which is perfectly in line with a god that said he would return but is taking longer than expected. You can make anything up and say it was "prior" to a beginning of a universe but it doesn't prove anything except having an imagination enough to think something exists before time does. That something could be anything so long as it is panentheistic, but panentheism doesn't have a foothold on theology as I mentioned deism is in line with reality too.

 

[idav]

If a concept of a particular god is internally incoherent, then such a god doesn't exist, and cannot appear in visions.

Wow, like your omnimax god.

 

[idav]

That doesn't address my argument anyway. Joseph Smith's followers said they saw stuff, *a lot* of crazy stuff. Angels, miracles of all kinds and so on. How is this possible?

Yup if people believe in god, revelation, angels and Jesus then why wouldn't they seriously consider information from any claimed prophet. Normally though they are quick to point out how ridiculous everyone else is when their stuff may sound as farfetched.

 

[brokensymmetry]

It is not much of an assumption, it is a statement based on what I know. I know the universe began to exist, and I conclude logically that if the universe began to exist, then the universes origins cannot be made up of material, yet on the Mormon view, god is material. So Joseph Smith's view is contrary to what we already know.



This does address your argument. If a concept of a particular god is internally incoherent, then such a god doesn't exist, and cannot appear in visions. Plain and simple. A god that was once a man and existed within time is contrary to what we know about a universe that began to exist at some point in the finite past.

The Christian God, on the other hand, is completely in line with what we know regarding time...causal relations, and a material universe.

Here is what I am arguing. People in other religious traditions have seen, heard, experienced crazy things, according to their testimonies of events. That is true in the Mormon case, which you clearly do not believe in. That being so, your argument for the historicity of the resurrection is undermined. If you argument is something like, we have these eyewitnesses, why would they make this stuff up etc., whether or not you think Mormonism is reasonable in the end it is a clear counterexample. Here you have these eyewitnesses to these events. They insisted they saw this stuff. Now we have an issue with simply accepting the basic Christian claims as correct.