Religions > Atheism > Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2005 05:00:29 PM |
| Object: |
Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
20 July 2005
By BARNEY ZWARTZ
The Age
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne.
"New Testament scholars say the only evidence is witnesses in the four
gospels. That's only 5 per cent of the evidence," Professor Swinburne,
one of the world's leading philosophers of religion, said last night.
"We can't judge the question of the resurrection unless we ask first
whether there's reason to suppose there is a God, second if we have
reason to suppose he would become incarnate and third, if he did,
whether he would live the sort of life Jesus did."
Professor Swinburne, in Melbourne to give several seminars and a public
lecture at the Australian Catholic University last night, said the
mathematics showed a probability of 97 per cent.
This conclusion was reached after a complex series of calculations. In
simplified terms, it began with a single proposition: the probability
was one in two that God exists.
Next, if God exists, the probability was one in two that he became
incarnate. Further, there was a one in 10 probability that the gospels
would report the life and resurrection of Jesus in the form they do.
Finally, the clincher: the probability that we would have all this
evidence if it wasn't true was one in 1000.
He argued that any evidence for the existence of God was an argument
for the resurrection, and any evidence against the existence of God was
an argument against the resurrection.
"Does he have reason to become incarnate? Yes, to make atonement,
identify with our suffering and to teach us things, " Professor
Swinburne said.
Even Jesus' life is not enough proof, he said. God's signature was
needed, which the resurrection was, showing his approval of Jesus'
teaching.
The mathematical equations appear in the professor's book, The
Resurrection of God Incarnate (OUP, 2003).
.
|
|
| User: "Shark school missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
06 Nov 2005 09:12:45 AM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> suddenly spluttered:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
20 July 2005
By BARNEY ZWARTZ
The Age
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne.
"New Testament scholars say the only evidence is witnesses in the four
gospels. That's only 5 per cent of the evidence," Professor Swinburne,
one of the world's leading philosophers of religion, said last night.
"We can't judge the question of the resurrection unless we ask first
whether there's reason to suppose there is a God, second if we have
reason to suppose he would become incarnate and third, if he did,
whether he would live the sort of life Jesus did."
Professor Swinburne, in Melbourne to give several seminars and a public
lecture at the Australian Catholic University last night, said the
mathematics showed a probability of 97 per cent.
This conclusion was reached after a complex series of calculations. In
simplified terms, it began with a single proposition: the probability
was one in two that God exists.
Next, if God exists, the probability was one in two that he became
incarnate. Further, there was a one in 10 probability that the gospels
would report the life and resurrection of Jesus in the form they do.
Finally, the clincher: the probability that we would have all this
evidence if it wasn't true was one in 1000.
He argued that any evidence for the existence of God was an argument
for the resurrection, and any evidence against the existence of God was
an argument against the resurrection.
"Does he have reason to become incarnate? Yes, to make atonement,
identify with our suffering and to teach us things, " Professor
Swinburne said.
Even Jesus' life is not enough proof, he said. God's signature was
needed, which the resurrection was, showing his approval of Jesus'
teaching.
The mathematical equations appear in the professor's book, The
Resurrection of God Incarnate (OUP, 2003).
Nine out of ten Computing graduates agree that Bayesian logic is an
oxymoron. What is Swinburne's job ahain?
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
05 Nov 2005 11:21:00 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
20 July 2005
By BARNEY ZWARTZ
The Age
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne.
Nope. It might be 97% certain IF a number of other assumptions can be
trusted, such as Swinburne's Principle of Testimony: "... that we should
believe what others tell us that they have done or perceived-in the absence
of counter-evidence."
....
Regards,
Josef
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shark school missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
06 Nov 2005 09:20:24 AM |
|
|
"Josef Balluch" <josef.balluch@sympatico.can> suddenly spluttered:
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
20 July 2005
By BARNEY ZWARTZ
The Age
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne.
Nope. It might be 97% certain IF a number of other assumptions can be
trusted, such as Swinburne's Principle of Testimony: "... that we should
believe what others tell us that they have done or perceived-in the absence
of counter-evidence."
Well, glory be! If somebody tells me they saw a little mouse with
clogs on (well I declare) going 'clip clippity clop' on the stair,
this is proof that they did see a mouse with clogs on etc, and that if
there is a single person on the planet who doesn't understand the
concept of entertainment, this automatically evokes into existence a
stair with a mouse wearing clogs going 'clip clippity clop' on it.
Where does Swinburne buy his drugs?
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
06 Nov 2005 04:11:44 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
20 July 2005
By BARNEY ZWARTZ
The Age
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne
....a Christian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "2045 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
06 Nov 2005 06:08:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 00:11:44 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
20 July 2005
By BARNEY ZWARTZ
The Age
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne
...a Christian.
And not a statistician.
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
05 Nov 2005 05:48:12 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
"If"
"Supposing"
and it all hinges on god existing, which of course he doesn't prove
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose FromThe Dead |
06 Nov 2005 06:39:55 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
"If"
"Supposing"
and it all hinges on god existing, which of course he doesn't prove
He gives the probability as .5, on the basis that p or not p must be
true. I nearly posted his e-mail address, but perhaps that is a
/little/ severe.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
06 Nov 2005 10:54:52 PM |
|
|
In <dklilq$7uo$2@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Martin Edwards
<big_mart_98@yahoo.com> wrote:
kathryn wrote:
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
"If"
"Supposing"
and it all hinges on god existing, which of course he doesn't prove
He gives the probability as .5, on the basis that p or not p must be true.
I nearly posted his e-mail address, but perhaps that is a /little/
severe.
So he starts with 0.5 and ends up at 0.97?
You know, I've forgotten a hell of a lot about statistics and *still that
hits me as jarringly wrong...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
Design flaws and malfeasance
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W35E21C1C
Outdated standards
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X14E32C1C
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
05 Nov 2005 06:12:14 PM |
|
|
On 2005-11-05 09:00:29 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> said:
He argued that any evidence for the existence of God was an argument
for the resurrection,
thereby proving himself unqualified to do the alleged arithmetic.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have
taken my wages in people.
- Quentin Crisp
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 06:06:00 PM |
|
|
655321 wrote:
On 2005-11-05 09:00:29 -0800, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> said:
He argued that any evidence for the existence of God was an
argument for the resurrection,
thereby proving himself unqualified to do the alleged arithmetic.
Which god? Allah whose revealed book declares
Jesus is not his son and the Jesus was not
crucified?
Basically, I guess he had to ignore all the
discrepencies and contradictions of the gospels too.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Hertzlinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 05:21:56 AM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 09:00:29 -0800, words of truth
<wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
20 July 2005
By BARNEY ZWARTZ
The Age
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne.
"New Testament scholars say the only evidence is witnesses in the four
gospels. That's only 5 per cent of the evidence," Professor Swinburne,
one of the world's leading philosophers of religion, said last night.
"We can't judge the question of the resurrection unless we ask first
whether there's reason to suppose there is a God, second if we have
reason to suppose he would become incarnate and third, if he did,
whether he would live the sort of life Jesus did."
Professor Swinburne, in Melbourne to give several seminars and a public
lecture at the Australian Catholic University last night, said the
mathematics showed a probability of 97 per cent.
This conclusion was reached after a complex series of calculations. In
simplified terms, it began with a single proposition: the probability
was one in two that God exists.
Next, if God exists, the probability was one in two that he became
incarnate. Further, there was a one in 10 probability that the gospels
would report the life and resurrection of Jesus in the form they do.
Finally, the clincher: the probability that we would have all this
evidence if it wasn't true was one in 1000.
What's the probability that we would have Elvis sightings in the
absence of the resurrection of The King?
On the other hand, the important probability isn't the probability of
having evidence of a resurrection but the probability of having
evidence of something as fantastic as a resurrection. If there are
1000 possible fantastic events that could launch a religion, and each
of them has one chance in 100 of coming true, one of them would
probably come true.
--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Natural" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
08 Nov 2005 03:21:39 AM |
|
|
In many religions have rebirth legends,without proof.
India have some so-called rebirth or resurrection tale, maybe can be
explained from science theory. Human being canot breath withour air,
though some super-power-man can live under soil.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 10:37:56 AM |
|
|
Quote: Next, if God exists, the probability was one in two that he became
incarnate. Further, there was a one in 10 probability that the gospels
would report the life and resurrection of Jesus in the form they do.
My rough calculation shows that at this point the probabilty (sic) is 2.5%,
i.e. 2.5 in a hundred
Quote: Finally, the clincher: the probability that we would have all this
evidence if it wasn't true was one in 1000.
So this means that the remaining 97.5 from 100, left over from the previous
calculation, has a 0.1 in 100 chance of being the case (how this is arrived
at I have no idea!). So taken at face value it would seem to say that it is
25 times more likely that Christ was .... etc, or 2500%! Not less than 50%
tho.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 11:57:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:37:56 -0000 in alt.atheism, JusUK ("JusUK"
<jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Quote: Next, if God exists, the probability was one in two that he became
incarnate. Further, there was a one in 10 probability that the gospels
would report the life and resurrection of Jesus in the form they do.
My rough calculation shows that at this point the probabilty (sic) is 2.5%,
i.e. 2.5 in a hundred
Quote: Finally, the clincher: the probability that we would have all this
evidence if it wasn't true was one in 1000.
So this means that the remaining 97.5 from 100, left over from the previous
calculation, has a 0.1 in 100 chance of being the case (how this is arrived
at I have no idea!). So taken at face value it would seem to say that it is
25 times more likely that Christ was .... etc, or 2500%! Not less than 50%
tho.
According to some sources, humans have been around for about 150,000
years, or about 3,500 generations. Given this what are the odds that I
exist?
Well, in order for me to be me in a genetic sense, 14,000 people
(ignoring incest) would have to meet, have sex resulting in a
pregnancy and a live birth of an individual who went on to breed, at
length resulting in me.
So the odds are 0.5 ^ 14000, or so close to zero
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-14,GGLD:en&q=0%2E5%5E14000
that my existence is so mind bogglingly unlikely as to be impossible.
However, this does not take into account the well authenticated
principle that a million to one shot'll happen nine times out of ten.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dont believe me" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
05 Nov 2005 05:22:44 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 09:00:29 -0800, words of truth let slip this dark
secret:
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne.
Hahahahahahahaha! This group's a hoot!
Has anybody seen Elvis?
Hahahahahahahahaha!
--
"Man who shoot off mouth, must expect to lose face."
- Confucious
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose FromThe Dead |
05 Nov 2005 08:45:05 PM |
|
|
Don't believe me wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 09:00:29 -0800, words of truth let slip this dark
secret:
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne.
Piggybacking as WoT is killfiled
"New Testament scholars say the only evidence is witnesses in the four gospels. That's only 5 per cent of the evidence," Professor Swinburne, one of the world's leading philosophers of religion, said last night.
I wonder what he things the other 95% is? Presumably personal experience
This conclusion was reached after a complex series of calculations. In simplified terms, it began with a single proposition: the probability was one in two that God exists.
Next, if God exists, the probability was one in two that he became incarnate. Further, there was a one in 10 probability that the gospels would report the life and resurrection of Jesus in the form they do.
How about if the proability that god exists is 1 in 1000 and if he did,
the probability that he became incarnate 1 in 100
I wodner id the rest was an less poor thatn the bits in the article
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
06 Nov 2005 06:15:11 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:22:44 -0500, Don't believe me <noway@no.nada>
wrote:
On 5 Nov 2005 09:00:29 -0800, words of truth let slip this dark
secret:
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne.
Hahahahahahahaha! This group's a hoot!
Has anybody seen Elvis?
Several times.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
05 Nov 2005 05:41:49 PM |
|
|
Troll of the day "words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
Sorry, but another moron has already made this troll:
Message-ID:
Do try and keep up.
LC~ So many fools, so few facts.
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."~David Hume
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose FromThe Dead |
06 Nov 2005 06:41:24 PM |
|
|
LC wrote:
Troll of the day "words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
Sorry, but another moron has already made this troll:
Message-ID:
Do try and keep up.
LC~ So many fools, so few facts.
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."~David Hume
You don't get it. He *is* an Oxford professor and he *did* write that.
I'm shocked.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
.
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 02:30:22 PM |
|
|
"Martin Edwards" <big_mart_98@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dklioj$7uo$3@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
LC wrote:
Troll of the day "words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
Sorry, but another moron has already made this troll:
Message-ID:
Do try and keep up.
LC~ So many fools, so few facts.
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."~David Hume
You don't get it.
Oh, but I do.
File under 'figures lie and liars figure'...
He *is* an Oxford professor and he *did* write that. I'm shocked.
Don't be.
Refer to this, the cite I posted the for the benefit of the last moron that
posted this tripe:
<excerpted from previous troll>:
"It is faith, not proof, that makes Christians believe in Jesus Christ's
resurrection, the central tenet of the religion. Until now. Oxford
University professor Richard Swinburne, a leading philosopher of religion"
Whose "interests" include:
"The meaning and justification of the central claims of Christianity"
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/
"...justification".
I'd say Prof. Swinburne is either an intellectually dishonest kook or an
underrated satirist.
LC~ Betting on the former.
"Man is a marvelous curiosity, he thinks he is the Creator's pet, he even
believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to
admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays
to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea."~ Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IE_Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
05 Nov 2005 07:16:11 PM |
|
|
Well 'words of truth',
It was an interesting article,
BUT,
I never seen a loosier Academic deduction and the big fault is his starting
points.
First I have to say that I do believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy
Spirit, I believe that Holy Mary was a virgin and so on. That's from this
starting point I find it very bad to see the loosy deduction.
Oxford professor Richard Swinburne starts with what he calls "5 per cent of
the evidence" for Jesus Christ rising from the dead due to the witnesses in
the four Gospels.
I am not going to dispute the figures he presented for what scholars of NT
arrived to re. percentage. That might very well be a correct figure, or it
might be either too low or too high depending on which quality one put into
the text-critical analyses of the Gospels.
BUT,
the question "whether there's reason to suppose there is a God", isn't on
same level neither as "if we have reason to suppose he would become
incarnate" or "if he did, whether he would live the sort of life Jesus did".
This makes the rest of his thesis living on quick-sand because he hasn't
checked the premisses needed for all three to be true on the same time.
Observe that while the first premiss is:
* is there reason to suppose there is a God?
this could easily be proven true without any doubt due to question faith -
non faith.
I know that in many countries where scholars and other interested reads this
there is a dispute, sometimes hard, between believers in Creation and
Evolution. That verbal fight I never understood. It's so simple: If there
was a Big Bang, something must have 'come' from nothing and from before the
time(of the Big Bang at least). Since only a creator could achive that
something comes from nothing, there must have been a creator involved. That
creator we Christian call God, other religions calls him Allah, Jahve etc.
(Don't forget that we are three Religion's believers who believe in the Old
Testament).
This means, provided that we aren't discussing a very unlikely possibility
of the Big Bang being a jojo-effect expanding-inplanding, that the first
question rised by professor Richard Swinburne is possible to prove as far as
anything bejond human comprehension can be.
BUT
From that the second question's premiss neither follows nor is likely to
follow. That premiss is of a completely different type.
Premiss 2:
* We humans have reason to suppose he, God, would become incarnate.
In this humans are involved. As told in the Bible we humans aren't perfect
after Adam and Eve left Eden.
It's from that as well as other views impossible to place our faith as a
weight on same balance lever. What we humans 'have reason to suppose' can't
be validated together with what God could or would do. That God could do
everything doesn't mean that he necessarily done everything for us to see
and be aware of. The question of God coming down to Earth showing himself as
Jesus Christ isn't only a question about being Christian or not. We don't
live in 4th century AD nor in Medieval Age. Thus we have to accept that
there are Christians who believe in Jesus Christ, as I do btw, as God's
Supreme Son and others who believe that Jesus Christ is God incarated. We
also have to accept that the question within this premiss, 'Did Jesus Christ
exist before Time', never been completely answered. There are Christians who
believe that as well as there are Christians who believe that Jesus Christ
existed within Time.
The third premiss needed to be true at the same time as the two aboeve
derives from 'if he did, whether he would live the sort of life Jesus did":
* Given that premiss 1 and 2 are true, God would(?) live the sort of life
Jesus did.
This is a what if question inside a premiss and thus can NEVER EVER exist in
a Scholarly analyse. What if has nothing what so ever to do with 'God
would(?) live the sort of life Jesus did. The last part isn't for us humans
to have a saying about. That God could live the sort of life Jesus did,
doesn't say anything what so ever about if he chosed to do so or if it's
like we Protestants belonging to the Swedish Chruch believe, that God sent
his own and Supreme Son to live among us. We can as humans discuss for or
against eithe 'position' in this, but from a Scholarly point of view it's
absolutely impossible to mix this the third premiss with the two first and
as shown above it's completely impossible for us as humans to believe
let-alone prove that our opinion of what God can and have done has anything
at all to do with the premiss that God exist.
Inger E
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth@hoshmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:1131210029.575816.74670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3350172a1861,00.html
Jesus story 'gets it 97pc right'
20 July 2005
By BARNEY ZWARTZ
The Age
It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead -
based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according to Oxford
professor Richard Swinburne.
"New Testament scholars say the only evidence is witnesses in the four
gospels. That's only 5 per cent of the evidence," Professor Swinburne,
one of the world's leading philosophers of religion, said last night.
"We can't judge the question of the resurrection unless we ask first
whether there's reason to suppose there is a God, second if we have
reason to suppose he would become incarnate and third, if he did,
whether he would live the sort of life Jesus did."
Professor Swinburne, in Melbourne to give several seminars and a public
lecture at the Australian Catholic University last night, said the
mathematics showed a probability of 97 per cent.
This conclusion was reached after a complex series of calculations. In
simplified terms, it began with a single proposition: the probability
was one in two that God exists.
Next, if God exists, the probability was one in two that he became
incarnate. Further, there was a one in 10 probability that the gospels
would report the life and resurrection of Jesus in the form they do.
Finally, the clincher: the probability that we would have all this
evidence if it wasn't true was one in 1000.
He argued that any evidence for the existence of God was an argument
for the resurrection, and any evidence against the existence of God was
an argument against the resurrection.
"Does he have reason to become incarnate? Yes, to make atonement,
identify with our suffering and to teach us things, " Professor
Swinburne said.
Even Jesus' life is not enough proof, he said. God's signature was
needed, which the resurrection was, showing his approval of Jesus'
teaching.
The mathematical equations appear in the professor's book, The
Resurrection of God Incarnate (OUP, 2003).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 03:04:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:16:11 GMT, "IE_Johansson"
<inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote:
I know that in many countries where scholars and other interested reads this
there is a dispute, sometimes hard, between believers in Creation and
Evolution. That verbal fight I never understood. It's so simple: If there
was a Big Bang, something must have 'come' from nothing and from before the
time(of the Big Bang at least). Since only a creator could achive that
Ignorant idiot.
Look up "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal
incredulity".
Modern cosmology offers several possibilities which satisfy the laws
of physics as we understand them. Quantum mechanics knows about
particles appearing ex nihilo. The big bang could be such an
occurrence. Notice that unlike theists, nobody says it WAS one. It
also regards the universe as a zero sum: matter plus energy plus
antimatter equals zero.
something comes from nothing, there must have been a creator involved. That
creator we Christian call God, other religions calls him Allah, Jahve etc.
(Don't forget that we are three Religion's believers who believe in the Old
Testament).
Only if you're ignorant.
This means, provided that we aren't discussing a very unlikely possibility
of the Big Bang being a jojo-effect expanding-inplanding, that the first
question rised by professor Richard Swinburne is possible to prove as far as
anything bejond human comprehension can be.
No. It means you are proud of your ignorance and assume everybody else
is as ignorant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 04:16:43 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6ggtm1thph0f8kjl2q9tjht8fvgdeelqog@4ax.com...
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:16:11 GMT, "IE_Johansson"
<inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote:
I know that in many countries where scholars and other interested reads
this
there is a dispute, sometimes hard, between believers in Creation and
Evolution. That verbal fight I never understood. It's so simple: If there
was a Big Bang, something must have 'come' from nothing and from before
the
time(of the Big Bang at least). Since only a creator could achive that
Ignorant idiot.
Look up "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal
incredulity".
The big bang needs a cause, not a creator.
Modern cosmology offers several possibilities which satisfy the laws
of physics as we understand them. Quantum mechanics knows about
particles appearing ex nihilo.
True, you can literally 'borrow energy from the universe' to create
particles (and this happens all the time). Also, 100 years after Einstein's
amazing insights, it still seems bizarre to think about how the universe
looks from the frame of reference of a photon.
The difference about the big bang, though, is that it does seem to indicate
the creation of space-time, and our physics operate, at least now, only
within the realm of space-time. Outside space time is a mystery to us.
The big bang could be such an
occurrence. Notice that unlike theists, nobody says it WAS one. It
also regards the universe as a zero sum: matter plus energy plus
antimatter equals zero.
Although the matter/anti-matter symmetry seems broken, at least a bit.
I do think it plausable to consider the cause of the big bang, or the cause
for space-time to be created has consciousness. For me the question is less
one of "god" but whether the scientist's use of the god concept as
describing the order of nature at an impersonal one (god does not play dice,
god is not a weak left hander) or a religious idea of god as conscious is
valid. I think either is possible. That said, the leap from this point to
belief in particular religious myths makes little sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IE_Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 09:31:24 AM |
|
|
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:LyAbf.29409$qk4.27855@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6ggtm1thph0f8kjl2q9tjht8fvgdeelqog@4ax.com...
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:16:11 GMT, "IE_Johansson"
<inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote:
I know that in many countries where scholars and other interested reads
this
there is a dispute, sometimes hard, between believers in Creation and
Evolution. That verbal fight I never understood. It's so simple: If
there
was a Big Bang, something must have 'come' from nothing and from before
the
time(of the Big Bang at least). Since only a creator could achive that
Ignorant idiot.
Look up "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal
incredulity".
The big bang needs a cause, not a creator.
Please try to explain where a cause in a situation where nothing exist could
exist without a creator?
As for the 'argument....incredulity' lines written by someone who normally
writes relatively good argumentation-answers, I take it as if the person in
question either wrote in haste or didn't think what he was writing.
Anyone trying to argue that something can be gotten from nothing without a
creator, must be prepared to prove that possible. Doesn't matter if we are
talking about Big Bang or what we in Sweden calls 'koka soppa på en spik'.
(Cook a soup on a nail).
Modern cosmology offers several possibilities which satisfy the laws
of physics as we understand them. Quantum mechanics knows about
particles appearing ex nihilo.
True, you can literally 'borrow energy from the universe' to create
particles (and this happens all the time). Also, 100 years after
Einstein's
amazing insights, it still seems bizarre to think about how the universe
looks from the frame of reference of a photon.
You can't borrow energy where no energy exists!
For such a scenario to be possible at all it takes that there existed a
universe and that energy existed.
If one looks closer into the Big Bang calculations,
yes I done that together with friends who studied it on Chalmers. (Why? How
should I else be able to explain that part of the Universe, planets and
earth to students if I am not at least prepared for questions which could be
risen?),
you will see that if you don't go into discussions and analyses of an
already existing universe which expands and implact over and over, then it's
impossible to present any kind of valid arguments for energy to exist before
the Big Bang.
If no energy exist,
no energy can be borrowed to create particles.
Thus you do have to have some form a energy before Big Bang for your
assumption to be valid even given Quantum mechanics.
The fact that "Quantum mechanics knows about
particles appearing ex nihilo." doesn't take into consideration the
premisses for Big Bang before Big Bang. All observed is of course observed
after Big Bang. No one argue that we and all around us isn't energy one way
or an other. What I argue against in your claim is that when nothing exist -
nothing exists = no energy exist.
If that wasn't the case, then something existed.
For that something to have existed,
that would have had to be existing BEFORE Big Bang's clock started to tick.
That something would, if existing at that 'time', have to be explained why
it existed same way as anything else that could have existed before Big
Bang.
Thus you still would have the problem with the hen and the egg no matter if
you use Quantum mechanics to explain it.
The difference about the big bang, though, is that it does seem to
indicate
the creation of space-time, and our physics operate, at least now, only
within the realm of space-time. Outside space time is a mystery to us.
Not only a mystery either there existed/exists outside space time or it
doesn't.
Given that it does, such 'existens' must be able to explain no matter that
we can't do it for the moment with our present knowledge.
Using present knowledge, which is all we ever can do, we can't explain it
away as a mystery. No matter what word we would like to 'give' the
creation/creator something from outside must have had an impact that caused
Big Bang. For me that's God. Simple as that.
The big bang could be such an
occurrence. Notice that unlike theists, nobody says it WAS one. It
also regards the universe as a zero sum: matter plus energy plus
antimatter equals zero.
Although the matter/anti-matter symmetry seems broken, at least a bit.
True. But that doesn't explain how something was a result of nothing that
existed before Big Bang. As I pointed to above what's observed is observed
under condition to have happened A F T E R Big Bang. Neither Quantum
mechanics or any other alike gives an explination or a description for
situation before.
I do think it plausable to consider the cause of the big bang, or the
cause
for space-time to be created has consciousness. For me the question is
less
one of "god" but whether the scientist's use of the god concept as
describing the order of nature at an impersonal one (god does not play
dice,
god is not a weak left hander) or a religious idea of god as conscious is
valid. I think either is possible. That said, the leap from this point
to
belief in particular religious myths makes little sense.
True. It's up to each one of us to have our own faith with or without belief
in a particular religious God a myth or whatever.
Inger E
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 10:55:45 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:31:24 GMT in alt.atheism, IE_Johansson
("IE_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@att.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:LyAbf.29409$qk4.27855@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6ggtm1thph0f8kjl2q9tjht8fvgdeelqog@4ax.com...
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:16:11 GMT, "IE_Johansson"
<inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote:
I know that in many countries where scholars and other interested reads
this
there is a dispute, sometimes hard, between believers in Creation and
Evolution. That verbal fight I never understood. It's so simple: If there
was a Big Bang, something must have 'come' from nothing and from before the
time(of the Big Bang at least). Since only a creator could achive that
Ignorant idiot.
Look up "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal
incredulity".
The big bang needs a cause, not a creator.
Please try to explain where a cause in a situation where nothing exist could
exist without a creator?
Ok....!
Personally, I think that to assume that the BB had a cause, be it a
Creator, or otherwise, hides the presupposition that causality was in
some was "pre-existent" to the BB when we have no reason to assume
that it was and some indications that it wasn't.
This is to say that as far as we know causality is a *property* of the
universe, much like as the physicists tell us space and time are.
Causality might be naively summed up as "if this happens then that
follows" - but what does this mean if time, a property of the
universe, does not exist?
Moreover, the universe appears to be acausal at some very fundamental
levels and while at our "macro-level" this isn't what one might call
terribly noticeable, at least not without considerable investment,
What does it mean if there is no causality? Well, frankly I dunno. But
never having something like that stand between me and an opinion, I'd
venture to suggest that it may mean that nothing can happen, or
anything can happen.
So, to clarify, my major objection to the claim that life, the
universe, and everything had an ultimate cause is that to do so
contains the hidden presupposition that causality was in some way
pre-existent to the universe when causality is strongly arguable as a
*property* of the universe - a consequence of space and time.
From a religious point of view, "if causality, why God"?
As for the 'argument....incredulity' lines written by someone who normally
writes relatively good argumentation-answers, I take it as if the person in
question either wrote in haste or didn't think what he was writing.
Anyone trying to argue that something can be gotten from nothing without a
creator, must be prepared to prove that possible. Doesn't matter if we are
talking about Big Bang or what we in Sweden calls 'koka soppa på en spik'.
(Cook a soup on a nail).
Tell me more. Is it by any chance cooked by angels on the head of a
pin?
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Crozier" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 11:33:46 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:8laum1tclrs7qf9gcli72sija8m37l8o6a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:31:24 GMT in alt.atheism, IE_Johansson
("IE_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
Anyone trying to argue that something can be gotten from nothing without
a
creator, must be prepared to prove that possible. Doesn't matter if we
are
talking about Big Bang or what we in Sweden calls 'koka soppa på en
spik'.
(Cook a soup on a nail).
Tell me more. Is it by any chance cooked by angels on the head of a
pin?
No. It's a variant of the folk tale about stone soup. You can read it here:
http://www.berattarverkstan.se/net/soup.htm
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 04:22:42 PM |
|
|
"Alan Crozier" <name1.name2@telia.com> wrote in message
news:uYGbf.150063$dP1.508035@newsc.telia.net...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:8laum1tclrs7qf9gcli72sija8m37l8o6a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:31:24 GMT in alt.atheism, IE_Johansson
("IE_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
Anyone trying to argue that something can be gotten from nothing without
a
creator, must be prepared to prove that possible. Doesn't matter if we
are
talking about Big Bang or what we in Sweden calls 'koka soppa på en
spik'.
(Cook a soup on a nail).
Tell me more. Is it by any chance cooked by angels on the head of a
pin?
No. It's a variant of the folk tale about stone soup. You can read it
here:
http://www.berattarverkstan.se/net/soup.htm
Alan
The problem with postulating God as the answer to how the big bang was able
to get started is that it just delays the problem. This is because we must
then just ask how did God appear from nothing? The answer to this in the
middle ages was that he didn't, he just always existed which is not really
to answer the question at all except with a sophist trick, and one that
sounds pretty non-sensical to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IE_Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 04:35:11 PM |
|
|
"JusUK" <jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:dknv06$npr$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
"Alan Crozier" <name1.name2@telia.com> wrote in message
news:uYGbf.150063$dP1.508035@newsc.telia.net...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:8laum1tclrs7qf9gcli72sija8m37l8o6a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:31:24 GMT in alt.atheism, IE_Johansson
("IE_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
Anyone trying to argue that something can be gotten from nothing
without
a
creator, must be prepared to prove that possible. Doesn't matter if we
are
talking about Big Bang or what we in Sweden calls 'koka soppa på en
spik'.
(Cook a soup on a nail).
Tell me more. Is it by any chance cooked by angels on the head of a
pin?
No. It's a variant of the folk tale about stone soup. You can read it
here:
http://www.berattarverkstan.se/net/soup.htm
Alan
The problem with postulating God as the answer to how the big bang was
able
to get started is that it just delays the problem. This is because we must
then just ask how did God appear from nothing? The answer to this in the
middle ages was that he didn't, he just always existed which is not really
to answer the question at all except with a sophist trick, and one that
sounds pretty non-sensical to me.
Now you are asking the wrong question. We aren't back in Nicea and the
question isn't if Jesus Christ exists within time or before time.
God has as discussed and agreed upon in Concils from 4th century unforward
'always existed'.
Given that a person believe in God it's more likely that the person agrees
upon this which hasn't been a 'hard' religious dispute-question than that
the person in question doesn't. This is one of the essential faith-questions
which gives a point to if a person is a Christian believer or not.
Now from a logic point of view given that a person isn't a believer in God
and that same person should express his or her logic analyse of the
question, you are right.
But since any proof being presented for the existence of God always carry a
subjective personal believed opinion and can't be said to be 100% objective,
then you are wrong.
It's like mixing apples and bananas. Both is fruit but no matter that they
don't look alike and not taste alike it's up to a person to decide if he
likes them or not. Given that he or she likes one doesn't necessarily have
the impact that the person likes the other.
Thus when I say that Big Bang doesn't exclude a Creator and in my personal
belief need a Creator to be explained,
that goes and comes with the definition of what existed before Big Bang or
not.
If you can put forward anything showing or indicating that a Creator, in my
word God, couldn't have existed without being Created, please do so.
But remember that you then have to prove that something existed before such
a creation.
It would still be the hen and the egg problem.
Definition or not.
Inger E
.
|
|
|
| User: "JusUK" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 04:58:08 PM |
|
|
"IE_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:3nLbf.37706$d5.194582@newsb.telia.net...
"JusUK" <jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:dknv06$npr$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
"Alan Crozier" <name1.name2@telia.com> wrote in message
news:uYGbf.150063$dP1.508035@newsc.telia.net...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:8laum1tclrs7qf9gcli72sija8m37l8o6a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:31:24 GMT in alt.atheism, IE_Johansson
("IE_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
Anyone trying to argue that something can be gotten from nothing
without
a
creator, must be prepared to prove that possible. Doesn't matter if
we
are
talking about Big Bang or what we in Sweden calls 'koka soppa på en
spik'.
(Cook a soup on a nail).
Tell me more. Is it by any chance cooked by angels on the head of a
pin?
No. It's a variant of the folk tale about stone soup. You can read it
here:
http://www.berattarverkstan.se/net/soup.htm
Alan
The problem with postulating God as the answer to how the big bang was
able
to get started is that it just delays the problem. This is because we
must
then just ask how did God appear from nothing? The answer to this in the
middle ages was that he didn't, he just always existed which is not
really
to answer the question at all except with a sophist trick, and one that
sounds pretty non-sensical to me.
Now you are asking the wrong question. We aren't back in Nicea and the
question isn't if Jesus Christ exists within time or before time.
God has as discussed and agreed upon in Concils from 4th century unforward
'always existed'.
Given that a person believe in God it's more likely that the person agrees
upon this which hasn't been a 'hard' religious dispute-question than that
the person in question doesn't. This is one of the essential
faith-questions
which gives a point to if a person is a Christian believer or not.
Now from a logic point of view given that a person isn't a believer in God
and that same person should express his or her logic analyse of the
question, you are right.
But since any proof being presented for the existence of God always carry
a
subjective personal believed opinion and can't be said to be 100%
objective,
then you are wrong.
It's like mixing apples and bananas. Both is fruit but no matter that they
don't look alike and not taste alike it's up to a person to decide if he
likes them or not. Given that he or she likes one doesn't necessarily have
the impact that the person likes the other.
Thus when I say that Big Bang doesn't exclude a Creator and in my personal
belief need a Creator to be explained,
that goes and comes with the definition of what existed before Big Bang or
not.
If you can put forward anything showing or indicating that a Creator, in
my
word God, couldn't have existed without being Created, please do so.
But remember that you then have to prove that something existed before
such
a creation.
It would still be the hen and the egg problem.
Definition or not.
Inger E
Come on, how can something have always existed? Imagine you ask God "Have
you always existed?" and He said "Yes", what if you said "How do you know?
Because you cannot remember anything before yourself?"
Even God could not know He had always existed because how could He know when
always began? Of course, being the first being to exist, He would not know
of anything existing before Himself but how could He be sure that nothing
had existed before even if to Himself He seemed eternal? Of course now some
people might just assert He is all-knowing but that is also just a silly
idea if you ask me.
If by "always existing" you mean since the beginning of time this is a
different situation. Indeed time may have begun at the Big Bang but this is
not what most Theists mean.
.
|
|
|
| User: "IE_Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Oxford Professor: It Is 97% Certain That Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead |
07 Nov 2005 05:26:55 PM |
|
|
"JusUK" <jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:dko12k$si1$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
"IE_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com> wrote in message
news:3nLbf.37706$d5.194582@newsb.telia.net...
"JusUK" <jusuk@travel-diarySPAMOFF.de> skrev i meddelandet
news:dknv06$npr$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
"Alan Crozier" <name1.name2@telia.com> wrote in message
news:uYGbf.150063$dP1.508035@newsc.telia.net...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:8laum1tclrs7qf9gcli72sija8m37l8o6a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:31:24 GMT in alt.atheism, IE_Johansson
("IE_Johansson" <inger_e.johansson@telia.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
Anyone trying to argue that something can be gotten from nothing
without
a
creator, must be prepared to prove that possible. Doesn't matter if
we
are
talking about Big Bang or what we in Sweden calls 'koka soppa på en
spik'.
(Cook a soup on a nail).
Tell me more. Is it by any chance cooked by angels on the head of a
pin?
No. It's a variant of the folk tale about stone soup. You can read it
here:
http://www.berattarverkstan.se/net/soup.htm
Alan
The problem with postulating God as the answer to how the big bang was
able
to get started is that it just delays the problem. This is because we
must
then just ask how did God appear from nothing? The answer to this in
the
middle ages was that he didn't, he just always existed which is not
really
to answer the question at all except with a sophist trick, and one that
sounds pretty non-sensical to me.
Now you are asking the wrong question. We aren't back in Nicea and the
question isn't if Jesus Christ exists within time or before time.
God has as discussed and agreed upon in Concils from 4th century
unforward
'always existed'.
Given that a person believe in God it's more likely that the person
agrees
upon this which hasn't been a 'hard' religious dispute-question than
that
the person in question doesn't. This is one of the essential
faith-questions
which gives a point to if a person is a Christian believer or not.
Now from a logic point of view given that a person isn't a believer in
God
and that same person should express his or her logic analyse of the
question, you are right.
But since any proof being presented for the existence of God always
carry
a
subjective personal believed opinion and can't be said to be 100%
objective,
then you are wrong.
It's like mixing apples and bananas. Both is fruit but no matter that
they
don't look alike and not taste alike it's up to a person to decide if he
likes them or not. Given that he or she likes one doesn't necessarily
have
the impact that the person likes the other.
Thus when I say that Big Bang doesn't exclude a Creator and in my
personal
belief need a Creator to be explained,
that goes and comes with the definition of what existed before Big Bang
or
not.
If you can put forward anything showing or indicating that a Creator, in
my
word God, couldn't have existed without being Created, please do so.
But remember that you then have to prove that something existed before
such
a creation.
It would still be the hen and the egg problem.
Definition or not.
Inger E
Come on, how can something have always existed? Imagine you ask God "Have
you always existed?" and He said "Yes", what if you said "How do you know?
Because you cannot remember anything before yourself?"
I take it that you don't believe in God.
Questions you ask are only valid for those who doesn't believe in him.
The definition for God is that he is everything and that he existed before
time.
The definition for time here is time as we humans knows it. It doesn't
include what we don't know.
Given that you believe in God,
you also believe that God is everything, every where and that he always
existed.
If you don't believe in God,
then it wouldn't help what ever I said before you yourself had a personal
experience or relation to someone close by you who had had a personal
experience of God.
I use to say that God isn't an Englishman as some believe,
but he must be a 'Göteborgare' (have the mind of a Gothenburg born
man/woman).
Why?
God for me is love without asking of why love is given.
God for me has humor,
he doesn't give me what I want and pray for but what he thinks I need in the
given moment I asked.
While he is very easy to talk to,
his answers aren't always so clear as a yes or no on a question like the one
you asked.
If you had known your Bible, given that it was a Holy Book for you, you also
would have known that it isn't for us humans to have the answer on every
question dealing with our own faith and God's love.
Even God could not know He had always existed because how could He know
when
always began? Of course, being the first being to exist, He would not know
of anything existing before Himself but how could He be sure that nothing
had existed before even if to Himself He seemed eternal? Of course now
some
people might just assert He is all-knowing but that is also just a silly
idea if you ask me.
Once again your lines are only valid for those who don't believe in God. The
'eternal' is the keyword. For all who believes in God, God is and always
been eternal.
Thus this hasn't anything to do with logic or myths,
only with faith.
Faith isn't possible to weight nor is it possible to establish if one person
has deeper faith than the next one.
Why?
For anyone believing in God, no matter if it's a Christian person as I am or
a Jew or Muslim who also believe in the Old Testamony, there is one thing
that makes us different from God and that is that we are humans.
While it's possible for God to weight a person's faith and life,
that's not for humans to do.
If by "always existing" you mean since the beginning of time this is a
different situation. Indeed time may have begun at the Big Bang but this
is
not what most Theists mean.
Time as it's defined starts in point A,
which we might call Big Bang,
but God isn't a point nor a human and in the 'definition' of God is him
being eternal and existing BEFORE time included.
Now given that you don't believe in God,
the answer of your's is understandable,
if you do believe in Him please explain why you don't include God being
eternal and always existing which also means before time, look in the Bible
if you aren't sure what I mean by this.
Inger E
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
