Well there are two things which might be a bit odd.
Firstly the experience of witnessing something that I can barely grasp. What I say about the landscape of time is my brain (perhaps) finding the only way of processing the experience which can be registered. There was a strong sense of experiencing something more, but which I didn’t have the capacity to comprehend. This is also necessarily an all body experience rather than just in the head, or mind.
Secondly the experience of another being coming into my space and taking over in a sense, lifting up, lifting me out of myself.
I’m not seeing “the brain doing weird stuff” as much of an explanation, other than a catch all idea.
I hear you explaining to me how strange your experience was, as if the strangeness of the experience somehow precluded a mundane explanation. Do you see how that’s not a valid logical inference? The “my brain is doing weird stuff” was presented as a “catch all”. It was meant to point toward a general type of explanation, not a specific and detailed explanation. Certainly you don’t expect that this discussion would lead to a detailed neurological diagnosis?
I have to say I’m really left baffled by this discussion, and wonder if there’s something I’m missing, or if you have an unspoken assumption you haven’t realised.
I am going to jump to your requested new line of thought, to end the pestering fixation on it, and once resolved, return to the other lines of thought, if still necessary. To avoid the conversation from splitting again into several, ever-increasing, simultaneous lines of thought, I will respond to the first aspect (assuming that there may be multiple) of your future replies that I take issue with (assuming that I will take issue with certain aspects). This is not to be taken as me ignoring any other aspects of your future replies, as I do not wish to ignore any aspects of your replies.
The case’s primary points:
The tomb was empty. Paul attests to this in 1 Corinthians 15, written roughly 20–25 years after the event. The earliest counter-claim - “the disciples stole the body” - presupposes the tomb was empty. You can’t argue “the body was still there” without rejecting the earliest response from the opposing side.
The disciples went from hiding in fear after the crucifixion to publicly proclaiming the resurrection. Most were eventually killed for the claim. The question isn’t “is resurrection plausible?” It’s “what’s the best explanation for a group going from fear to repeated, costly public proclamation of a specific claim in a specific place?”
Paul, an independent source / known former persecutor of Christians, claims a post-crucifixion appearance. His letters are the earliest Christian documents and are independent of the gospel tradition.
You don’t have to accept “God did it.” The question is whether that data gets you to “this specific thing happened.” Where does it land for you?
The initial post-crucifixion appearance mentioned in my reply, along with ongoing revelations (foretold in Acts 26:16) referenced in 2 Corinthians 12:7 and 2 Corinthians 12:4.
My argument doesn’t preclude gods that are creators, it just precludes creative forces/entities that are the subject of purely abstract arguments, divorced from intervention in human life and without knowable wills.
I don’t see how a Creator who caused the universe and life to exist could be divorced from intervention in human life. I can infer God wanted humans to live.
I’m dubious about the notion of a creative force/entity, but don’t rule it out. If I granted the conclusion of the “first mover” argument as being completely true, it would have no effect on my belief in a god. A first cause isn’t a god, it’s an abstract philosophical concept.
I’m a philosophical theist not a religious theist. I believe in the existence of a Creator because the universe indicates it was intentionally caused to produce life…not because the bible or any holy writ told me so. No abstract concepts or first mover argument. Just facts about the universe we live in.
Which specific thing exactly? The Jesus actually was dead, and actually became alive again? Not even close.
If you want to suggest that Jesus appeared to be dead and somehow revived, that’s an exceedingly higher likelihood. I am also open to the story being apocryphal. Either is completely plausible. Jesus actually rising from the dead isn’t.
You can’t see it? Your not familiar with Deism? There’s no logical necessity that if something creates the universe that thing 1) has intention, or 2) involves itself with it’s creation. So you can’t logically infer that a generic creative force wants anything without introducing some more assumptions that require justification.
You’ll need to be more specific than “facts about the universe”.
You can’t see it? Your not familiar with Deism? There’s no logical necessity that if something creates the universe that thing 1) has intention, or 2) involves itself with it’s creation. So you can’t logically infer that a generic creative force wants anything without introducing some more assumptions that require justification.
I am familiar with deism. I have no information about the creator other than what can be known from nature and science.
Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1]It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws.
You’ll need to be more specific than “facts about the universe”.
Of course wasn’t sure if you were interested in a dialog.
One fact that stands out about the universe is that early on it had none of the conditions for life to exist. For thousands of years is was a blob of hot plasma. No stars, no galaxies, no planets, no rocky planets no atoms, no molecules none of the ingredients for life. There were however the laws of physics, the four fundamental forces including gravity and plenty of hydrogen. I should say gravity at the right strength. A little stronger or weaker and stars and galaxies would be vastly different. Due only to the laws of physics, specific properties of matter and the four fundamental forces and quantum mechanics the universe was transformed into a place where a bio-friendly planet like earth could exist. The universe and the laws of physics didn’t just allow life…they caused life to exist. You claim a God isn’t necessary meaning no intent, design or plan. I don’t know that’s true. Even people who claim it don’t know its true.
You’ve offered three options - actually dead and rose, appeared dead and revived, or the story is apocryphal - and declared the last two “completely plausible” without specifying what evidence distinguishes them from the first. What would you need to see to rule out “actually dead” in favor of “appeared dead”?
“So Paul got his information from God?” is simply restating what was already said in the form of a question - there’s nothing more to say. “Doesn’t that seem a bit question begging?” simply tells me you have some sort of question(s), but aren’t actually asking them. If you have a legitimate question, I’m all ears.
Yes, the earth occurred in an environment within which the earth could occur.
I suppose it depends on how you mean this. In one sense, it’s a tautology, but philosophically uninteresting. The initial conditions, which were the laws of physics acting within the universe, led to the emergence of life. In any possible world where life occurred, this would be the case.
On the other hand, if you mean the universe has a mind and intention like people do, then you haven’t demonstrated that at all, youv’e just equivocated.
Actually, I do know that it isn’t logically necessary, because there is a logically coherent philosophical position that asserts it. Saying that it is true that it isn’t logically necessary is a function of logic, not a statement about the nature of the universe. I think you’re trying to say that I can’t know that any claim about the nature of the universe is true? If so, then you can’t either. We agree? Then let’s please never again bring up that pedantry, and move on to what you are claiming is the case.
And if God appeared to me and said hello here I am, I’m God and I exist. See you can touch me, I’m real. Your line of reasoning would again dismiss that as a weird thing my brain was doing.
So is there any degree of weirdness which would change your response to, hey maybe this is something different?
Well I was baffled as to why you thought probabilities and a lack of out of the ordinary experiences could lead someone to conclude that God doesn’t exist. Or was it, God probably doesn’t exist?
If two explanations are possible, the one that is more plausible on it’s face is the one you go with. Always. It isn’t the degree of weirdness that determines my response, it’s the possibility of a mundane explanation. If all mundane explanations were somehow ruled out, I would start considering the possibility of non-mundane explanations (start considering, because there might be a mundane explanation I haven’t thought of that wasn’t ruled out).
I sense that this is a rhetorical statement, but if you’re really baffled by my argument, maybe ask about it, and I’ll clarify. I thought I laid the logic out pretty straightforwardly.
No, it was God, what is your response then? How would you determine if it were God, a deceiver, or my mind playing tricks on me?
But my point is they are never ruled out, because we are taking the account determined by our interaction with the world we find ourselves in as the true version and explanation of reality. Whereas in reality, we only have a partial view, so are not equipped to make a judgement on the matter. We don’t know to what degree our view is partial, or that we are not in some way mistaken, or screwed in this view.
It was the idea that some kind of assessment of probability from a partial view, determines anything.
I’m curious: If it’s self-evident, how do you account for the fact that so many people, philosophers and non-, don’t see it? This doesn’t happen with, to use your analogy, the blue sky.