Topic: Celebrating nearly a year without belief. (Thank you!)

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Allow me to fast forward this tired old conversation a page or two of posts. Erhem...

Stock atheist: If God caused the universe, then what caused God?
Stock Christian: Nobody. God is an uncaused, logically necessary being.
Stock atheist: But if God can be uncaused and logically necessary, then why can't the universe be?

I've often wondered the same thing. I guess the theistic response would be that every effect demands a cause. Science proves that the universe is the effect, or series of effects, of some other cause/causes. I guess one could argue that there is an infinite series of causes and effects, but that would be contrary to everything else we observe. So it seems only logical to believe that some First Cause has/had to exist to set the whole thing in motion. But I don't know. I'm just speculating on what an answer to this question might be.

Selam

[FinnJames]

Allow me to fast forward this tired old conversation a page or two of posts. Erhem...

Stock atheist: If God caused the universe, then what caused God?
Stock Christian: Nobody. God is an uncaused, logically necessary being.
Stock atheist: But if God can be uncaused and logically necessary, then why can't the universe be?

I've often wondered the same thing. I guess the theistic response would be that every effect demands a cause. Science proves that the universe is the effect, or series of effects, of some other cause/causes. I guess one could argue that there is an infinite series of causes and effects, but that would be contrary to everything else we observe. So it seems only logical to believe that some First Cause has/had to exist to set the whole thing in motion. But I don't know. I'm just speculating on what an answer to this question might be.

Selam

Anyone thinking about these questions might want to have a look at physicist Lawrence M. Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing or his YouTube videos on the same topic. It is possible to absorb the information there without jettisoning your faith and becoming an atheist.

[Volnutt]

I'll give it a watch, but if Krauss is anything like Stephen Hawking is on this then he's blowing smoke. "Nothing" is not some extremely low chaotic energy state that's still subject to gravity or whatever, it's... nothing. If Hawking didn't have so much disdain for philosophy he'd likely realize this.

Thus his "the universe creates itself" is really just a bare assertion of the eternality of matter, which doesn't tell us anything about whether there's a God or whether there needs to be a God.

[augustin717]

My he existence of a god of the philosophers has never been something I've thought about much , but Christianity's more specific claims are,  I think  , impossible to demonstrate. I mean the textual problema of the NT are so many that the more reasonable way is to just Take it as a mythology. It could be historically true, but obviously God didn't wanna make it plain .

[Volnutt]

My he existence of a god of the philosophers has never been something I've thought about much , but Christianity's more specific claims are,  I think  , impossible to demonstrate. I mean the textual problema of the NT are so many that the more reasonable way is to just Take it as a mythology. It could be historically true, but obviously God didn't wanna make it plain .

Which textual problems are you referring to? Most of the ones I've seen have been very minor in terms of Christianity's overall message (eg. even if Mark 16:9-19 is not a genuine part of the original, it isn't like it's the only passage in the NT about the Resurrection).

That being said, I don't believe that Christianity is strictly speaking provable. But in the absence of a definitive proof that it's false, I prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt since it's such an old and widely held belief system compared to modern forms of rationalistic atheism (obviously, how Christianity stacks up against similarly old or older beliefs like Judaism or Hinduism is a different question).

[truthseeker32]

MichaelofSN,

You and I had an exchange in the past, an exchange I left all the more disappointed because I found your newfound worldview so naive and incoherent, perhaps because I  myself tried for so long to find true meaning in my life within my atheistic perspective. Maybe you will get lucky, and you will be able to ignore the tormenting conclusions thinkers like Nietzsche and Camus found at the end of their worldviews. The world increasingly offers ways for those of us in Western society to ignore just how horrendous is the world that we inhabit.

I do wish for you the best, despite our disagreements, and I hope that someday you realize that, although you were unaware, God was more real and intimate than anything or anyone else you know.

[Charles Martel]

In my experience, the more educated atheists are the ones who are more likely to acknowledge that there are intelligent folks on the other side;

Just the opposite in my opinion, the more educated those little fellers are, the less they are to buy into religion and other "superstition". I had a good friend of mine I grew up, brilliant kid, valedictorian in HS, went on to BC , nailed it in college and picked up a few PHD's I believe. This guy was like a rocket scientist but totally down to Earth, We'd get together a few times and anytime the subject of religion came up, he was completely put off, he  was too smart (maybe for his own good) for me  to get into it scientifically or even philosophically and to be honest, he believed that anyone who did have faith was because they lacked the education or intelligence  or perception to figure out the reality of the ridiculousness of religious mind control or together. Nice guy, but all that education destroyed any faith he had all together and would pick apart anyone around him trying to believe. Sad part is, he died rather quickly in his disbelief, I'm concerned about his immortal soul. But his atheism was genuine and he truly struggled with the whole aspect of an absolute being controlling our lives and destinies. God have mercy on him.

the ones who never go beyond 'pop atheism' the are the ones who dismiss believers as stupid.

Meh, most of them are easily dismissed by any amateur apologist. Not that i'm one.

And I'm not sure what you'd consider a 'true' atheist, but I would definitely say that some religious people are among the smartest people I've met.

Sadly, most of them I ever met were truly idiots or  hypocrites in the least. I'm not impressed by most religious people, most are charlatans.

Both sides run the gamut, and religiosity doesn't seem to be an effective measure of intelligence in either direction.

I'm going to disagree with this to a point, it matters really what "religion" you're talking about.

[augustin717]

My he existence of a god of the philosophers has never been something I've thought about much , but Christianity's more specific claims are,  I think  , impossible to demonstrate. I mean the textual problema of the NT are so many that the more reasonable way is to just Take it as a mythology. It could be historically true, but obviously God didn't wanna make it plain .

Which textual problems are you referring to? Most of the ones I've seen have been very minor in terms of Christianity's overall message (eg. even if Mark 16:9-19 is not a genuine part of the original, it isn't like it's the only passage in the NT about the Resurrection).

That being said, I don't believe that Christianity is strictly speaking provable. But in the absence of a definitive proof that it's false, I prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt since it's such an old and widely held belief system compared to modern forms of rationalistic atheism (obviously, how Christianity stacks up against similarly old or older beliefs like Judaism or Hinduism is a different question).

We'll take the nativity or resurrection narratives for starters. But I don't wanna debate these really. I'm quite content with how things are . Nobody can livewithoit a mythology. Not even the scientists.

[Volnutt]

My he existence of a god of the philosophers has never been something I've thought about much , but Christianity's more specific claims are,  I think  , impossible to demonstrate. I mean the textual problema of the NT are so many that the more reasonable way is to just Take it as a mythology. It could be historically true, but obviously God didn't wanna make it plain .

Which textual problems are you referring to? Most of the ones I've seen have been very minor in terms of Christianity's overall message (eg. even if Mark 16:9-19 is not a genuine part of the original, it isn't like it's the only passage in the NT about the Resurrection).

That being said, I don't believe that Christianity is strictly speaking provable. But in the absence of a definitive proof that it's false, I prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt since it's such an old and widely held belief system compared to modern forms of rationalistic atheism (obviously, how Christianity stacks up against similarly old or older beliefs like Judaism or Hinduism is a different question).

We'll take the nativity or resurrection narratives for starters. But I don't wanna debate these really. I'm quite content with how things are . Nobody can livewithoit a mythology. Not even the scientists.

Ok. Fair enough.

[LenInSebastopol]

Charles, disagree on educated folk having God-smacked outta them. While it is true in this day and age, one can simply note it is the zeitgeist of late. And the politics of the education industry has mandated that what is Beauty, Truth & Goodness be marginalized, ridiculed and diminished at every turn when it appears.  I do have hope that it is turning around and the young folks are seeking what is real since they are aware of the hollowness of what is offered "out here". The OP simply is not up to the struggle in seeking, as it seems he will settle on what is "on the outside" things of life.
Just my 2¢

[MichaelofSN]

If you didn't get a PM/DM from me (I tried to remember everyone!) let me know.  My "office" is wherever my laptop is now, so I'm always around.  I definitely still want to stay in touch, so I'd love to have your email address.  This way I'm addressing a person and not a community and contributing to the civil war on OC.net.    Again, thanks for the information and the conversation (mostly had outside of this forum!).

So I wish you well

You too, Gebre.  I hope you keep writing, mate.

That's an issue that has fascinated me for about a year and a half now. Where do you stand on it? You a dualist, Mysterianist, or do you think the problem cannot even be formulated like Chomsky does? Or maybe some form materialism, whatever that might mean these days?

You are as much your hand / foot as you are your brain.  There's nothing special about the wetware between our ears.  Your thoughts / ideas are just a product of your physiology.  The mind / body distinction has been a huge problem for the church (here come the slobbering ultra hyperdox!).  It's the cause of beliefs in such things as spirits and souls.  The mind / body distinction was also considered a gnostic teaching by the early church.  I am definitely not a dualist, but I sympathize with this position.  I was tapped to participate in a study about how the brain funtions during religious experience and got to see what my brain did during times where I "felt the presence of God".  Which is why I still believe theists when they tell me they "know" Christ or have a personal relationship with them.  And so should you, don't doubt that claim... they really believe it (with certainty).  What they don't know, is that they're having an experience with themselves... nothing external.  Despite it being very convincing.  On Chomsky, I cannot stand him.  He's feeding the liberals all sorts of horrible ideas that spit in the face of the traditions that got us this far as a species.

Tried that way, as you are going. For me it turned out to be hell.
It's good you have made peace with what you've found.
Steady on.

Thanks, mate.  All the best to you.

Why were you excommunicated anyway? I'd feel more like Heimbach.

When I still believed, I was teaching my children that neither heaven or hell existed and that there is no afterlife.

If you're actually a "scientific" atheist now, this doesn't even make sense. How can one who completely rejects the concept of religion and bases their worldview on scientific evidence and logic believe that anyone who believes in the notion of these fairy tales are some of the "smartest" people that they've talked to? Most educated atheists that I know believe religious people are  either foolish or seriously delusional and misguided at best. There are no "smart" Christians.

As for the "stupid" people who post on here, I percieve you believe this because you might  disagree with their philosophy or politics on certain issues. Not so much their deductive reasoning.

It's a matter of epistemology.  A first philosophy that requires more presupposition that what is reasonable causes flaws in the entire worldview.  However, that doesn't mean that someone who has a worldview that allows them to contribute to the species positively most of the time is stupid.  Especially when they stay busy helping their fellow primates.

This thread makes me feel sad

It wasn't my intention to do so.  Sorry!  I meant to thank you folks.  Cheer up!!! I am the one going to hell.  lol

It's telling that you came back to this forum, OP.  I like how your post is an attempt to convince yourself, and not us.

Care to chat in real time on Google Hangouts?  PM me and I'll work around your schedule.  Or perhaps we could exchange telephone numbers.  Serious.

Thanks for your post, Michael. I'm sad to see you go, but I appreciate many of the things you said. Best wishes.

Thank you!  You too!  All the best to you and yours!

Many years!

The same to you!

Hope you hang around for a bit, MichaelofSN. I've enjoyed your prior posts.  I'm sorry to hear about the direction your faith has taken. I've taken that journey myself, and returned back to Christianity. I can't prove its true, but I like myself a lot more as a Christian than I did when I was an agnostic (never made it quite to atheist, seemed a bit too definitive for me. Maybe I just disliked the label, I dunno.).

I don't know if I want to come back.  The in-fighting (as is evident with this thread) is head-spinning.  Most of the people from this forum, who I really love, contact me outside this forum.  It's what caused this post in the first place; I got an email and a phone call last week from 2 folks on this forum and it made me think of some of y'all.    Either way, thank you and I hope you find satisfaction in your endeavors too! 

Allow me to fast forward this tired old conversation a page or two of posts. Erhem...

Stock atheist: If God caused the universe, then what caused God?
Stock Christian: Nobody. God is an uncaused, logically necessary being.
Stock atheist: But if God can be uncaused and logically necessary, then why can't the universe be?

Somebody's been reading heretical literature and spending time on the DevilTubes!!!!  Ha!  j/k, mate.

MichaelofSN,

You and I had an exchange in the past, an exchange I left all the more disappointed because I found your newfound worldview so naive and incoherent, perhaps because I  myself tried for so long to find true meaning in my life within my atheistic perspective. Maybe you will get lucky, and you will be able to ignore the tormenting conclusions thinkers like Nietzsche and Camus found at the end of their worldviews. The world increasingly offers ways for those of us in Western society to ignore just how horrendous is the world that we inhabit.

I do wish for you the best, despite our disagreements, and I hope that someday you realize that, although you were unaware, God was more real and intimate than anything or anyone else you know.

If I ever caused offense, please accept this as a heart felt apology.  Best wishes, mate.

[RobS]

My he existence of a god of the philosophers has never been something I've thought about much , but Christianity's more specific claims are,  I think  , impossible to demonstrate. I mean the textual problema of the NT are so many that the more reasonable way is to just Take it as a mythology. It could be historically true, but obviously God didn't wanna make it plain .

While I think an empirical God leads to absurdity, it seems just as dubious to verify the historicity of the Gospel narratives because not only does it cover over the existential richness of these texts but its something of a category error.

My view is it doesn't matter because narratives don't happen nor do they ever enter into a domain of truth. The Jesus found in the gospel narrative can't be the same that lies outside the text because Jesus, who functions as a character in a story, only makes sense in the narrative structure and nowhere else. So if the Orthodox want to assert that Jesus exists outside the text then clearly he would belong in a different category than the one we encounter by reading the text (although of course I would raise the question what does it mean for Jesus to exist outside the text, why does that matter? Clearly it would be a different Jesus). That also means the crucifixion and resurrection only make sense in the narrative and nowhere else.

But if the Orthodox and other Christians want to continue to insist that the Gospel events happened, well that is exactly what is at issue, what do we mean by something happened?

We are talking about past events in which nobody alive today has any memory of them...so in what way does the past exist, or does it not? If it doesn't then how is it any more "real" than a story.

Anyhow, since I take these texts to have existential meaning I need to address them where I am and how, and not try to pretend to be someone I am not (like a 1st century Christian). The gospel addresses a central problem of mine: the self. I want to overcome it and become a loving person but I cannot do that alone otherwise I'll just give credit to my ego. It's the gospel which transforms us, its what "saves" us. Maybe there are other religious or philosophical texts that address your own existential issues better, who am I to judge?

[augustin717]

I get what you're saying see its merits this is also the view of many modern theologians etc.
But it's my understanding that the OC holds many of the events narrated in the gospels to Be historical in the way that the battle of Waterloo is .

[PeterTheAleut]

My he existence of a god of the philosophers has never been something I've thought about much , but Christianity's more specific claims are,  I think  , impossible to demonstrate. I mean the textual problema of the NT are so many that the more reasonable way is to just Take it as a mythology. It could be historically true, but obviously God didn't wanna make it plain .

While I think an empirical God leads to absurdity, it seems just as dubious to verify the historicity of the Gospel narratives because not only does it cover over the existential richness of these texts but its something of a category error.

My view is it doesn't matter because narratives don't happen nor do they ever enter into a domain of truth. The Jesus found in the gospel narrative can't be the same that lies outside the text because Jesus, who functions as a character in a story, only makes sense in the narrative structure and nowhere else. So if the Orthodox want to assert that Jesus exists outside the text then clearly he would belong in a different category than the one we encounter by reading the text (although of course I would raise the question what does it mean for Jesus to exist outside the text, why does that matter? Clearly it would be a different Jesus). That also means the crucifixion and resurrection only make sense in the narrative and nowhere else.

But if the Orthodox and other Christians want to continue to insist that the Gospel events happened, well that is exactly what is at issue, what do we mean by something happened?

We are talking about past events in which nobody alive today has any memory of them...so in what way does the past exist, or does it not? If it doesn't then how is it any more "real" than a story.

Anyhow, since I take these texts to have existential meaning I need to address them where I am and how, and not try to pretend to be someone I am not (like a 1st century Christian). The gospel addresses a central problem of mine: the self. I want to overcome it and become a loving person but I cannot do that alone otherwise I'll just give credit to my ego. It's the gospel which transforms us, its what "saves" us. Maybe there are other religious or philosophical texts that address your own existential issues better, who am I to judge?

What good is the Resurrection if it's nothing more than an existential truth? If the Resurrection is not a historical fact, then there is no salvation.

[FinnJames]

What good is the Resurrection if it's nothing more than an existential truth? If the Resurrection is not a historical fact, then there is no salvation.

As long as one allows belief in the resurrection to shape one's life and one's actions for the better, what difference does it make--other than to those obsessed with driving out heretics and preserving Christian "purity" at the expense of Christian unity--whether one believes Christ's resurrection as outlined in the Bible is historical fact or (instructive) myth?

[primuspilus]

As long as one allows belief in the resurrection to shape one's life and one's actions for the better, what difference does it make--other than to those obsessed with driving out heretics and preserving Christian "purity" at the expense of Christian unity--whether one believes Christ's resurrection as outlined in the Bible is historical fact or (instructive) myth?

Dont care for St. Paul, do you?

PP

[PeterTheAleut]

What good is the Resurrection if it's nothing more than an existential truth? If the Resurrection is not a historical fact, then there is no salvation.

As long as one allows belief in the resurrection to shape one's life and one's actions for the better, what difference does it make--other than to those obsessed with driving out heretics and preserving Christian "purity" at the expense of Christian unity--whether one believes Christ's resurrection as outlined in the Bible is historical fact or (instructive) myth?

If Christ never rose from the dead, then those who believe in the Resurrection are the most pitifully delusional of people, for belief in the Resurrection has no power to make one a better person if there is no resurrection. This isn't about driving out heretics for the cause of Christian unity as you so posit in your straw man demonization.

[Iconodule]

What good is the Resurrection if it's nothing more than an existential truth? If the Resurrection is not a historical fact, then there is no salvation.

As long as one allows belief in the resurrection to shape one's life and one's actions for the better, what difference does it make--other than to those obsessed with driving out heretics and preserving Christian "purity" at the expense of Christian unity--whether one believes Christ's resurrection as outlined in the Bible is historical fact or (instructive) myth?

I take issue with the juxtaposition of "historical fact" vs "myth." All history is myth anyway. When we start parsing whether the resurrection was "history" or "myth" we are giving privilege to a materialist, reductionist conception of the world where the foundation of reality is what can be proven in a lab. Christ is risen and we live. That's what we believe- quibbling about metaphor vs. literalism, wherever we may fall on that spectrum, introduces doubt and alienates us from the reality of the resurrection. To be a Christian is to be a poet and poets shouldn't agonize over these categories.

[PeterTheAleut]

What good is the Resurrection if it's nothing more than an existential truth? If the Resurrection is not a historical fact, then there is no salvation.

As long as one allows belief in the resurrection to shape one's life and one's actions for the better, what difference does it make--other than to those obsessed with driving out heretics and preserving Christian "purity" at the expense of Christian unity--whether one believes Christ's resurrection as outlined in the Bible is historical fact or (instructive) myth?

I take issue with the juxtaposition of "historical fact" vs "myth." All history is myth anyway. When we start parsing whether the resurrection was "history" or "myth" we are giving privilege to a materialist, reductionist conception of the world where the foundation of reality is what can be proven in a lab. Christ is risen and we live. That's what we believe- quibbling about metaphor vs. literalism, wherever we may fall on that spectrum, introduces doubt and alienates us from the reality of the resurrection. To be a Christian is to be a poet and poets shouldn't agonize over these categories.

Indeed. Myth is not always fiction.

[FinnJames]

What good is the Resurrection if it's nothing more than an existential truth? If the Resurrection is not a historical fact, then there is no salvation.

As long as one allows belief in the resurrection to shape one's life and one's actions for the better, what difference does it make--other than to those obsessed with driving out heretics and preserving Christian "purity" at the expense of Christian unity--whether one believes Christ's resurrection as outlined in the Bible is historical fact or (instructive) myth?

I take issue with the juxtaposition of "historical fact" vs "myth." All history is myth anyway. When we start parsing whether the resurrection was "history" or "myth" we are giving privilege to a materialist, reductionist conception of the world where the foundation of reality is what can be proven in a lab. Christ is risen and we live. That's what we believe- quibbling about metaphor vs. literalism, wherever we may fall on that spectrum, introduces doubt and alienates us from the reality of the resurrection. To be a Christian is to be a poet and poets shouldn't agonize over these categories.

Yes, I agree 100% with you on that, though I must be having great difficulty putting it into words.

[FinnJames]

What good is the Resurrection if it's nothing more than an existential truth? If the Resurrection is not a historical fact, then there is no salvation.

As long as one allows belief in the resurrection to shape one's life and one's actions for the better, what difference does it make--other than to those obsessed with driving out heretics and preserving Christian "purity" at the expense of Christian unity--whether one believes Christ's resurrection as outlined in the Bible is historical fact or (instructive) myth?

If Christ never rose from the dead, then those who believe in the Resurrection are the most pitifully delusional of people, for belief in the Resurrection has no power to make one a better person if there is no resurrection. This isn't about driving out heretics for the cause of Christian unity as you so posit in your straw man demonization.

Demonization? You've lost me there.

Perhaps I've been misreading your posts, but my impression is that you reject entirely any mythological interpretation of the resurrection (virgin birth in previous posts) as at all valid for Christians to hold, which suggests only holding these beliefs as true historical accounts is all that you accept for yourself and others.

[Mor Ephrem]

I get what you're saying see its merits this is also the view of many modern theologians etc.
But it's my understanding that the OC holds many of the events narrated in the gospels to Be historical in the way that the battle of Waterloo is .

Is Waterloo historical?  Or is it a narrative that only exists and makes sense in a text?  Why or why not?

[Volnutt]

I get what you're saying see its merits this is also the view of many modern theologians etc.
But it's my understanding that the OC holds many of the events narrated in the gospels to Be historical in the way that the battle of Waterloo is .

The thing is, I'm not sure Waterloo is historical the way Waterloo is. The past as such doesn't exist, only the stories we tell ourselves about it. We know something "Waterloo-shaped" must be the cause of the primary source documents and artifacts that we have but we can never write "the true story" of Waterloo and be absolutely sure that this is exactly the same as the cause of those documents and artifacts (especially when two accounts of/stories about Waterloo contradict one another).

And when it comes to the Bible, things get even more complicated because sacred and secular history have different rules. Secular history cannot admit the supernatural, it just isn't a part of the rules of the game any more than a batter can have four strikes in a game of baseball. So, any account of "the historical Jesus" that might be written is going to necessarily be a naturalistic one. That doesn't mean "what really happened" (ie. the "Life-of-Christ-shaped" and "Life-of-Paul-Shaped" events that caused the documents of the NT and the early Fathers) has to have been naturalistic. The two conflicting styles of stories, secular and sacred, just have to be allowed to say their mutually exclusive things about it without us trying to force them into the same mold, which can't be done without trimming one to fit the other.

[Papist]

Allow me to fast forward this tired old conversation a page or two of posts. Erhem...

Stock atheist: If God caused the universe, then what caused God?
Stock Christian: Nobody. God is an uncaused, logically necessary being.
Stock atheist: But if God can be uncaused and logically necessary, then why can't the universe be?

I've often wondered the same thing. I guess the theistic response would be that every effect demands a cause. Science proves that the universe is the effect, or series of effects, of some other cause/causes. I guess one could argue that there is an infinite series of causes and effects, but that would be contrary to everything else we observe. So it seems only logical to believe that some First Cause has/had to exist to set the whole thing in motion. But I don't know. I'm just speculating on what an answer to this question might be.

Selam

Theist answer: The universe is not the kind of thing than be without a cause, since it is changing, and hence contingent.

[truthseeker32]

I've often wondered the same thing. I guess the theistic response would be that every effect demands a cause. Science proves that the universe is the effect, or series of effects, of some other cause/causes. I guess one could argue that there is an infinite series of causes and effects, but that would be contrary to everything else we observe. So it seems only logical to believe that some First Cause has/had to exist to set the whole thing in motion. But I don't know. I'm just speculating on what an answer to this question might be.

Selam

You are on the money. The answer from classical arguments for the existence of God is that the universe is contingent and moving, both of which require an explanation for their existence. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, acknowledges the possibility that the universe could be eternal. His argument is that at every instant the universe requires causal explanation for its existence, not that something must have started the universe, as the Kalam argument proposes.

[augustin717]

I get what you're saying see its merits this is also the view of many modern theologians etc.
But it's my understanding that the OC holds many of the events narrated in the gospels to Be historical in the way that the battle of Waterloo is .

Is Waterloo historical?  Or is it a narrative that only exists and makes sense in a text?  Why or why not?

It's better attested than the Nativity , you know.  On th strictly historical level .

[truthseeker32]

Anyone thinking about these questions might want to have a look at physicist Lawrence M. Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing or his YouTube videos on the same topic. It is possible to absorb the information there without jettisoning your faith and becoming an atheist.

Too bad Krauss is unaware of what "nothing" means, as far as philosophy is concerned.

[Mor Ephrem]

I get what you're saying see its merits this is also the view of many modern theologians etc.
But it's my understanding that the OC holds many of the events narrated in the gospels to Be historical in the way that the battle of Waterloo is .

Is Waterloo historical?  Or is it a narrative that only exists and makes sense in a text?  Why or why not?

It's better attested than the Nativity , you know.  On th strictly historical level .

I'm not surprised that you didn't answer the question.

[Papist]

Anyone thinking about these questions might want to have a look at physicist Lawrence M. Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing or his YouTube videos on the same topic. It is possible to absorb the information there without jettisoning your faith and becoming an atheist.

Too bad Krauss is unaware of what "nothing" means, as far as philosophy is concerned.

Exactly!!! It's interesting how these theories all amount to nothing actually being something, the contrary opposite of nothing. Atheism is founded in sophistry.

[Papist]

I've often wondered the same thing. I guess the theistic response would be that every effect demands a cause. Science proves that the universe is the effect, or series of effects, of some other cause/causes. I guess one could argue that there is an infinite series of causes and effects, but that would be contrary to everything else we observe. So it seems only logical to believe that some First Cause has/had to exist to set the whole thing in motion. But I don't know. I'm just speculating on what an answer to this question might be.

Selam

You are on the money. The answer from classical arguments for the existence of God is that the universe is contingent and moving, both of which require an explanation for their existence. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, acknowledges the possibility that the universe could be eternal. His argument is that at every instant the universe requires causal explanation for its existence, not that something must have started the universe, as the Kalam argument proposes.

Precisely because the universe is a changing thing.

[Volnutt]

Allow me to fast forward this tired old conversation a page or two of posts. Erhem...

Stock atheist: If God caused the universe, then what caused God?
Stock Christian: Nobody. God is an uncaused, logically necessary being.
Stock atheist: But if God can be uncaused and logically necessary, then why can't the universe be?

I've often wondered the same thing. I guess the theistic response would be that every effect demands a cause. Science proves that the universe is the effect, or series of effects, of some other cause/causes. I guess one could argue that there is an infinite series of causes and effects, but that would be contrary to everything else we observe. So it seems only logical to believe that some First Cause has/had to exist to set the whole thing in motion. But I don't know. I'm just speculating on what an answer to this question might be.

Selam

Theist answer: The universe is not the kind of thing than be without a cause, since it is changing, and hence contingent.

To which the atheist responds by saying that an unchanging God wouldn't be able to even act (or by rejecting the Platonic assumption that change=contingency=imperfection, etc.) and the conversation likely grinds to an impasse.

[augustin717]

I get what you're saying see its merits this is also the view of many modern theologians etc.
But it's my understanding that the OC holds many of the events narrated in the gospels to Be historical in the way that the battle of Waterloo is .

The thing is, I'm not sure Waterloo is historical the way Waterloo is. The past as such doesn't exist, only the stories we tell ourselves about it. We know something "Waterloo-shaped" must be the cause of the primary source documents and artifacts that we have but we can never write "the true story" of Waterloo and be absolutely sure that this is exactly the same as the cause of those documents and artifacts (especially when two accounts of/stories about Waterloo contradict one another).

And when it comes to the Bible, things get even more complicated because sacred and secular history have different rules. Secular history cannot admit the supernatural, it just isn't a part of the rules of the game any more than a batter can have four strikes in a game of baseball. So, any account of "the historical Jesus" that might be written is going to necessarily be a naturalistic one. That doesn't mean "what really happened" (ie. the "Life-of-Christ-shaped" and "Life-of-Paul-Shaped" events that caused the documents of the NT and the early Fathers) has to have been naturalistic. The two conflicting styles of stories, secular and sacred, just have to be allowed to say their mutually exclusive things about it without us trying to force them into the same mold, which can't be done without trimming one to fit the other.

We have eye witness accounts about Waterloo but not eye witness accounts of Jesus . When you read the gospel accounts of the resurrection in chronological you see how the story expands .
Don't get me wrong I'm sympathetic to your position, to James etc but you can't read it into the past much. It's a reaction to the devastation if you will, left by textual criticism(s). Of course most people's faith has nothing to do with the resurrection narrative or what have you

[augustin717]

I get what you're saying see its merits this is also the view of many modern theologians etc.
But it's my understanding that the OC holds many of the events narrated in the gospels to Be historical in the way that the battle of Waterloo is .

Is Waterloo historical?  Or is it a narrative that only exists and makes sense in a text?  Why or why not?

It's better attested than the Nativity , you know.  On th strictly historical level .

I'm not surprised that you didn't answer the question.

Do you give the same generous interpretative leeway to the story of Muhameds ascension to heaven as you give to similar stories in the NT? 
And yes Waterloo is historical according to the principles of contemporary historiography .

[Volnutt]

I get what you're saying see its merits this is also the view of many modern theologians etc.
But it's my understanding that the OC holds many of the events narrated in the gospels to Be historical in the way that the battle of Waterloo is .

The thing is, I'm not sure Waterloo is historical the way Waterloo is. The past as such doesn't exist, only the stories we tell ourselves about it. We know something "Waterloo-shaped" must be the cause of the primary source documents and artifacts that we have but we can never write "the true story" of Waterloo and be absolutely sure that this is exactly the same as the cause of those documents and artifacts (especially when two accounts of/stories about Waterloo contradict one another).

And when it comes to the Bible, things get even more complicated because sacred and secular history have different rules. Secular history cannot admit the supernatural, it just isn't a part of the rules of the game any more than a batter can have four strikes in a game of baseball. So, any account of "the historical Jesus" that might be written is going to necessarily be a naturalistic one. That doesn't mean "what really happened" (ie. the "Life-of-Christ-shaped" and "Life-of-Paul-Shaped" events that caused the documents of the NT and the early Fathers) has to have been naturalistic. The two conflicting styles of stories, secular and sacred, just have to be allowed to say their mutually exclusive things about it without us trying to force them into the same mold, which can't be done without trimming one to fit the other.

We have eye witness accounts about Waterloo but not eye witness accounts of Jesus . When you read the gospel accounts of the resurrection in chronological you see how the story expands .
Don't get me wrong I'm sympathetic to your position, to James etc but you can't read it into the past much. It's a reaction to the devastation if you will, left by textual criticism(s). Of course most people's faith has nothing to do with the resurrection narrative or what have you

We have eyewitness accounts of Waterloo, but they still have to be woven together (and any discrepancies between them plausibly ironed out) to create the "complete" panorama of what happened. No history prof is going to get away with just having the class read R. H. Gronow's Reminisces without further comment.

If all the eyewitness accounts disappeared and a future generation only had some secondary sources, it might change what they would believe about what happened, but not the "actual" events (though how do we really tell the difference?).

[truthseeker32]

To which the atheist responds by saying that an unchanging God wouldn't be able to even act (or by rejecting the Platonic assumption that change=contingency=imperfection, etc.) and the conversation likely grinds to an impasse.

This would just show that the atheist hasn't actually read the works of classical theists, since none of them equate "unchanging" with the inability to act. In fact, the opposite is true. For classical theists, God is unchanging in the sense that he is only ever acting.

[Volnutt]

To which the atheist responds by saying that an unchanging God wouldn't be able to even act (or by rejecting the Platonic assumption that change=contingency=imperfection, etc.) and the conversation likely grinds to an impasse.

This would just show that the atheist hasn't actually read the works of classical theists, since none of them equate "unchanging" with the inability to act. In fact, the opposite is true. For classical theists, God is unchanging in the sense that he is only ever acting.

They don't equate it, but I'm saying the atheist can do that as a reductio ad absurdum.

[Mor Ephrem]

I get what you're saying see its merits this is also the view of many modern theologians etc.
But it's my understanding that the OC holds many of the events narrated in the gospels to Be historical in the way that the battle of Waterloo is .

Is Waterloo historical?  Or is it a narrative that only exists and makes sense in a text?  Why or why not?

It's better attested than the Nativity , you know.  On th strictly historical level .

I'm not surprised that you didn't answer the question.

Do you give the same generous interpretative leeway to the story of Muhameds ascension to heaven as you give to similar stories in the NT? 
And yes Waterloo is historical according to the principles of contemporary historiography .

You are conflating issues to your convenience.  Enjoy.

[PeterTheAleut]

What good is the Resurrection if it's nothing more than an existential truth? If the Resurrection is not a historical fact, then there is no salvation.

As long as one allows belief in the resurrection to shape one's life and one's actions for the better, what difference does it make--other than to those obsessed with driving out heretics and preserving Christian "purity" at the expense of Christian unity--whether one believes Christ's resurrection as outlined in the Bible is historical fact or (instructive) myth?

If Christ never rose from the dead, then those who believe in the Resurrection are the most pitifully delusional of people, for belief in the Resurrection has no power to make one a better person if there is no resurrection. This isn't about driving out heretics for the cause of Christian unity as you so posit in your straw man demonization.

Demonization? You've lost me there.

Perhaps I've been misreading your posts, but my impression is that you reject entirely any mythological interpretation of the resurrection (virgin birth in previous posts) as at all valid for Christians to hold, which suggests only holding these beliefs as true historical accounts is all that you accept for yourself and others.

I have no idea what you're trying to say with this post. I do know, however, that I disagree with your definition of myth/mythological, and that I disagree with your dichotomy between myth and historical narrative.

[primuspilus]

Perhaps I've been misreading your posts, but my impression is that you reject entirely any mythological interpretation of the resurrection (virgin birth in previous posts) as at all valid for Christians to hold

Its not. It either literally happened, or Christianity is a lie and should be discarded (ergo, all the Apostles are liars as well).

PP

[augustin717]

Perhaps I've been misreading your posts, but my impression is that you reject entirely any mythological interpretation of the resurrection (virgin birth in previous posts) as at all valid for Christians to hold

Its not. It either literally happened, or Christianity is a lie and should be discarded (ergo, all the Apostles are liars as well).

PP

It's not how religion works.

[primuspilus]

Perhaps I've been misreading your posts, but my impression is that you reject entirely any mythological interpretation of the resurrection (virgin birth in previous posts) as at all valid for Christians to hold

Its not. It either literally happened, or Christianity is a lie and should be discarded (ergo, all the Apostles are liars as well).

PP

It's not how religion works.

That might not be how your religion works, but history is clear. The Scriptures and the Apostles preached Christ's literal, physical resurrection. If you don't think He did, sorry. You're not a Christian. Its as simple as that. History and Scripture dont care about your opinions.

PP

[minasoliman]

Dear Michael,

First off, you probably did not intend to offend, but you did provoke.  If an ex-Muslim went to a Muslim forum site talking about how he left Islam for another religion and is happy, how do you think it would be received?  Or if an ex-atheist went to a staunchly atheist forum and told them about happiness in religion, what would be their response?

In the Church, when you leave the Church, it is viewed in sadness for us.  It's like getting a divorce and telling the friends of the other party how awesome the break up is.  It may be true for you, but this isn't the place to gloat your personal joy of leaving what we believe is where we desire everyone should be in.  I would say it would have been more appropriate to word your experience differently.  Rather than "celebrating" a year without belief here, you can celebrate it somewhere else.  But here, you can talk about your feelings openly keeping in mind those around you.  Your post could be misconstrued as encouraging those to leave the faith even though the intent was not that.  Since the intent wasn't that people should leave the faith, but rather your struggle with faith and why you are more comfortable faithless at the moment for this past year, it does not match the title of this thread you gave.

That is not to say people here don't care.  People do care about your life and your beliefs.  I would say that I encourage to stay with us on oc.net and to discuss matters further and to keep in touch with friends of the Orthodox Church, especially those who can engage with you in discussions as fully knowledgeable members of the Church (if possible like a priest or a deacon).

You wrote:

You are as much your hand / foot as you are your brain.  There's nothing special about the wetware between our ears.  Your thoughts / ideas are just a product of your physiology.  The mind / body distinction has been a huge problem for the church (here come the slobbering ultra hyperdox!).  It's the cause of beliefs in such things as spirits and souls.  The mind / body distinction was also considered a gnostic teaching by the early church.  I am definitely not a dualist, but I sympathize with this position.  I was tapped to participate in a study about how the brain funtions during religious experience and got to see what my brain did during times where I "felt the presence of God".  Which is why I still believe theists when they tell me they "know" Christ or have a personal relationship with them.  And so should you, don't doubt that claim... they really believe it (with certainty).  What they don't know, is that they're having an experience with themselves... nothing external.  Despite it being very convincing.  On Chomsky, I cannot stand him.  He's feeding the liberals all sorts of horrible ideas that spit in the face of the traditions that got us this far as a species.

While I am slowly moving away from dualist tendencies, I will admit this should not be a reason for disbelief.  It is an ancient Semitic belief to be anti-dualist (and some people have seen the Scriptures as this), and there are ancient Semitic Christian expressions of faith in Orthodoxy, like St. Ephrem the Syrian that may corroborate with your anthropological concerns.  Nevertheless, I also have to say that these experiments do not necessarily prove or disprove a dualistic anthropology either.  So I will disagree with how you interpret these scientific experiments in the brain.  I don't disagree with your metaphysics though, and I don't think the internal proof of religious experiences necessarily disprove the internal and external deity who "in Him we live and move and have our being."

May the Lord strengthen you and enlighten you in His grace.

[Charles Martel]

t's a matter of epistemology.  A first philosophy that requires more presupposition that what is reasonable causes flaws in the entire worldview.  However, that doesn't mean that someone who has a worldview that allows them to contribute to the species positively most of the time is stupid.  Especially when they stay busy helping their fellow primates.

None of this sways from the fact of how one can consider someone brilliant while  at the same time  they believe in things that don't exist.

Regardless how much they care for their fellow featherless bipeds.

[Charles Martel]

Anyone thinking about these questions might want to have a look at physicist Lawrence M. Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing or his YouTube videos on the same topic. It is possible to absorb the information there without jettisoning your faith and becoming an atheist.

Too bad Krauss is unaware of what "nothing" means, as far as philosophy is concerned.

Was it Aristotle that described "nothing" as that what rocks dream about?

Pretty good definition if you ask me.

[RobS]

Perhaps I've been misreading your posts, but my impression is that you reject entirely any mythological interpretation of the resurrection (virgin birth in previous posts) as at all valid for Christians to hold

Its not. It either literally happened, or Christianity is a lie and should be discarded (ergo, all the Apostles are liars as well).

PP

It's not how religion works.

That might not be how your religion works, but history is clear. The Scriptures and the Apostles preached Christ's literal, physical resurrection. If you don't think He did, sorry. You're not a Christian. Its as simple as that. History and Scripture dont care about your opinions.

PP

Just the opposite, history still remains the furthest thing away from clarity and your naked assertion of it as if grounded in something so self-evident is know-nothingism at its finest. So what do you mean by "literally happened"?

There is nothing in history that is literal, and all that you know about the resurrection (and all one could ever know about it) is in a text. You just don't think the resurrection in the gospel is enough, you desire for more which goes back to being ashamed of the gospel.

And BTW no Christian ever witnessed the resurrection, not even the Apostles, who supposedly only witnessed the resurrected Christ. You keep insisting on a "literal" resurrection, meaning what? A supernatural event or an historical event that can be subjected to a natural explanation?

And of course agustin's reply went right over your head, your know-nothingism blunts any serious inquiry into what religion is (in the way agustin means it).