It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Giovonni
Belief in God - especially when you accept science - is pretty much hedging one's bets. It's a guess. It is irrational, because there is zero reason to believe. Science has already explained what happens down to the planck instant - it's just the question of before that instant - a point at which infinity can not be renormalized - what happened? There is not one thing that should lead a person to belief in a deity other than a personal need to have all questions answered.
It is not irrational because you still have not explained a) why anything exists at all and b) how to account for the earliest account of the resurrection, which is dated to just a few years after the event. Science cannot explain the first because it is outside the scope of science to do so. The second provides evidence that there were eyewitnesses available during the time of Jesus and no valid competing narrative exists that discounts these events. You say it's irrational without providing anything to backup the claim.
originally posted by: scorpio84
b). Who dated the events? Do we have the actual manuscripts from that time period? Give me evidence other than hearsay. Believing in pure hearsay is irrational. There's also the whole thing about the various manuscripts not agreeing with each other. My 4th century statement was wrong, I guess- I must have been thinking about a complete manuscript. Still, no proof of the resurrection other than someone saying it happened.
Believing something to be true when nothing indicates it to be that way is irrational.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Giovonni
Hardly anyone doubts the historicity of Jesus. In fact, most are in agreement that the synoptic Gospels are the best source for learning about him. What is doubted, however, is the authenticity of the resurrection story. Unfortunately, there is no way to say for absolute certain one way or another. We can, however, point to other similar stories of ascents into heaven (or whatever paradise-type realm) and ask - were all those cultures describing something that really happened? The idea of ascent/becoming one with God is not particular to the Bible.
What you say about the point x and god doesn't make any sense.
Also to say we know everything there is no unexplainable room for a god is a bit arrogant and also wrong.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Giovonni
1). Paul would likely be said to have suffered a hallucination, possibly spurned on by guilt (in regards to his conversion story described in the Acts of the Apostles).
2). No, I still don't require absolute proof. However, the claims of someone who arguable has hallucinations is not an adequate substitute. If the resurrection story and appearance to Paul were themes unique to Christianity, it may have more credence. As it is, Christian themes are not unique.
3). Apparently Ehrman and the "majority of scholars" have never heard of the Osiris Myth or the parallels to be found with Dionysus. There are even more ancient religions with this motif - however those who wrote the Bible would certainly have been familiar with Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Greek mythology - and if they didn't know the story or Dionysus, they would have known that of Bacchus.
What is driving the mythicist’s agenda? Why do they work so hard at showing that Jesus never really lived? I do not have a definitive answer to that question, but I do have a hunch. It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge), are either atheists or agnostics. The ones I know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly atheist.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: namelesss
Well, as it is now, it seems that whatever is happening before what can be measured by the planck scale must necessarily include infinity.
However, the question then becomes does "infinity" imply "God" or does it simply imply eternity?
By saying everything exists, it seems you are saying that our perception creates the reality.
The unicorn in one's mind is as real as the horse grazing in the field.
However - how do you explain that certain realities are made manifest while others stay in the mind but never become manifest?