Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think most would agree that the universe is a rationally intelligible system. We can discover structures, patterns, laws and symmetries within the system. Things that happen within the system seem to be related to those laws too. So given all this is it not at least reasonable to form the view that it is the work of an intelligent source? Isn't it at least as reasonable or arguably more reasonable to assume that as it is to assume it just so happens to exist with all these laws, patterns just there, with all that takes place in the universe just being fluke?

If we take some of the laws of physics too, we can write these down very succinctly using mathematics, indeed mathematics seems to be a language that is superb for describing things in the universe, a fine example being Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field. Theoretical physicists often say they feel that they are discovering these laws too:

So if the universe can be described in a language like mathematics doesn't that too strongly suggest an intelligent source? much as we'd infer if we stumbled upon clay tablets with writing on them or symbols carved into stone? Doesn't discovery of something written in a language, more or less prove an intelligent source?

So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #333]

When given only two options like that, it is 50/50. But if you look at the probabilities for these two options it is anything but 50/50. No gods or miracles have ever been demonstrated to exist or to have occurred, so that as an explanation has a very low probability. On the other hand, naturalistic explanations have successfully covered nearly every scenario we humans have encountered. So if you estimate probabilities for your two options it would be well under 1% for the god/miracle option, and over 99% percent for a naturalistic explanation, based solely on the track records of each.

Considering the different theories is not a place where you would want to take the argument. Because the only argument that can explain all the facts is the resurrection.

What facts?

What resurrection?


Tcg

If I may...
There is a religion out there known as Christianity. There are many versions of it, but in it is a claim that a god man died and rose again from the dead after a few days.

I could be wrong though, as there are many religions and resurrection claims out there, but for some reason he has picked this particular religious belief (if I'm not mistaken) to believe in as actually being real, unlike all the other religious god concepts available that may or may not include resurrected characters.

However, when he says 'facts', obviously he is talking about something other than a resurrection as such a thing has not been shown to be a possibility to even consider.

Funny thing about all this... All god concepts can be explained as being human imagination at work to describe and provide answers to unknowable questions. We know this, yet billions still pick a god concept(s) to supply them with these answers. What's wrong with 'I don't know'? IMO, they are some of the most important words we humans can use because pretending to know, stops further investigation.

All that to say, the facts... not so sure what is meant. The reserrection though, I'm pretty sure he believes in the Christian one.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

That's not a straw man. Even if I've misrepresented what's happening, I haven't misrepresented any of your arguments.

I haven't got off-topic. You brought up your allegorical theory and I have refuted that theory. Many times now. You also have not supported any of your arguments. Especially when your argument is in the minority.

I'll assume that this is the first argument that you want me to tackle. When we're done with this one, we'll gallop on to something else.

Oh, wait I have the perfect example of this:

Like this claim you made:

If you can find me a single historian that used the "normal historical method" to infer the historicity of any nonbiblical supernatural event, I'll consider your claim.

Why would ask for any nonbiblical supernatural event? We are talking about Biblical events in Luke. And as I showed the evidence is very plentiful that historians back all of my arguments. You see I am not the one that tries to change the argument when it is not going my way.

I haven't "conceded" anything.

You should because you haven't supported any of your arguments with facts.

• I have proved that the message of resurrection was early.

• I have proved that it has always been the central message of Christianity. Even your friend Bart Erhman supports that.

Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.

• I have proved that the disciples believed in a bodily resurrection.

N.T. Wright summarizes many of my arguments like this:

Conclusion; Wright says that the best explanation for the historical data of how the disciples behaved, and what early Christians believed about resurrection, can only be explained if God
raised Jesus (bodily) from the dead. This community would not have suddenly begun to believe in the single resurrection of the Messiah– who wasn’t even supposed to die – and then recklessly live their lives witnessing to this belief. They were the only ones who saw him killed and then walking around again after his death. Their belief was based on their own personal experiences of such a resurrected Jesus. They witnessed to this.
https://www.quodvultdeus.com/Resources/ ... tNotes.pdf

Your argument was that resurrection into a physical, earthly form was necessarily historical because early Christians believed that there was a resurrection in some form. My rebuttal is that if the early Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection, then by the same logic, that's only evidence that the resurrection was spiritual. The earliest sources we have, Paul and Mark, are ambiguous about what kind of resurrection occurred. Paul berates believers that ask him what kind of body Jesus was raised into by talking about various kinds of flesh, including the apparent claim that he was raised into a "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44). Mark doesn't describe the body of Jesus at all, but only that the tomb is open, Jesus is raised, he is somewhere else, and the disciples will see him in Galilee. This is just as consistent with Paul's spiritual body as with Matthew's earthly body.

The problem with your "spiritual body" argument is the that Paul used the Greek word "soma" or "σῶμα" to describe this spiritual body. Soma means the body both of men or animals.

So for example when in 1 Cor 10:4 Paul says this: "3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." This reference comes from the Old Testament

Exodus 17:6
Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Numbers 20:11
And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.

Does this read like it was spiritual water or real water to drink and it was made in a supernatural way? By Paul using the word 'soma' it means that there was an actual physical body that was made in a supernatural way.

The test for confusion is not if someone from the 21st century finds it confusing but how would someone from the first century interpret this verse with their beliefs and traditions. So it takes a little more than you simply declaring it was confusing. Why would someone in the 1st century think it was confusing with the beliefs that they had.

If that resurrection is what the early Christians believed, then Luke's story of conversations with a walking, talking Jesus could reasonably be allegorical representations of visions as reported by early Christians, the "eyewitnesses."

How would this explain the facts that NT Wright spoke of above?
Like

• This community would not have suddenly begun to believe in the single resurrection of the Messiah– who wasn’t even supposed to die

• and then recklessly live their lives witnessing to this belief.

• Along with moving the day of worship

Can you please explain how your theory explains these facts with respect to their Jewish beliefs?

I'll also point out, primarily for anyone else reading the thread, that Luke's resurrected body isn't necessarily incompatible with Paul's spiritual body. Luke's Jesus says that he's not a ghost (pneuma, "breath"), but Paul's phrase is "body of psychikon." Can one have a body of psychikon, but be able to eat fish and not be a pneuma? Maybe, since Luke's post-resurrection Jesus also has the power to vanish and reappear at will, which is something not attributed to the pre-resurrection Jesus.

Really because Luke says this; "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Luke 24:39 So yes Luke's account expressly says that Jesus's body was raised from the dead. That is definitely clear what he means. Refuted again.

Since your argument is that Luke's story can't be allegorical, I don't have to show that it is, only that it in principle could be. If you instead want to weigh relative probabilities (which would probably be a more interesting debate, anyway), then we could do that next.

I am not even sure how you can say that your allegorical theory is even possible in principle.

I have refuted every argument you have made for your allegorical theory.
We have established that Luke said that the resurrection was bodily Luke 24:39
We have established that Paul also said it was a physical resurrection because of his use of the word 'soma'.
We have established that the resurrection was the central message of Christianity, not some allegorical message.
We have established that the message of the resurrection was very early within a few years or some say months of the resurrection.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Tcg in post #339]

What facts?

We can start with these.

Jesus died by crucifixion.
He was buried.
His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
The tomb was empty (the most contested).
The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
The resurrection was the central message.
They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
The Church was born and grew.
Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Tcg in post #339]

What facts?

We can start with these.

Jesus died by crucifixion.
He was buried.
His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
The tomb was empty (the most contested).
The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
The resurrection was the central message.
They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
The Church was born and grew.
Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

Why do you think the Jews don't find your 'facts' to be convincing when it comes to 'their' messiah?
They are the Bible Gods chosen people afterall, out of all people on the face of the earth if the book is to be believed. Yet here you are, seemingly totally disregarding them.

Regardless, I see your facts and raise you 19.
30 Facts About Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/0 ... ammad-pbuh

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #344]

Why do you think the Jews don't find your 'facts' to be convincing when it comes to 'their' messiah?
They are the Bible Gods' chosen people after all, out of all people on the face of the earth if the book is to be believed. Yet here you are, seemingly totally disregarding them.

Quite the contrary the traditions and beliefs of the Jews are some of the best arguments for the resurrection. For example, The Jewish beliefs about the messiah say that the Messiah will not see decay and that he will usher in a time when Jews will rule the world. Or as NT Wright explained it.

Wright says that the best explanation for the historical data of how the disciples behaved, and what early Christians believed about resurrection, can only be explained if God
raised Jesus (bodily) from the dead. This community would not have suddenly begun to believe in the single resurrection of the Messiah– who wasn’t even supposed to die – and then recklessly live their lives witnessing to this belief. They were the only ones who saw him killed and then walking around again after his death. Their belief was based on their own personal experiences of such a resurrected Jesus. They witnessed to this.
https://www.quodvultdeus.com/Resources/ ... tNotes.pdf

Regardless, I see your facts and raise you 19.
30 Facts About Prophet Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/0 ... ammad-pbuh

Yes, Muhammad was a real person. But he is still in the grave. In fact, you can go see the tomb he was placed in. Muhammad never claimed to be God so yes he died just like any other man.

[Clownboat]

Quite the contrary

No, it's not contrary. The Jews reject that Jesus was/is their Messiah. You are dishonest and deceptive here, if you don't see it, readers surely will.
The Devil comes to deceive, don't be like the devil. You will know them by their fruits comes to mind.

Yes, Muhammad was a real person. But he is still in the grave. In fact, you can go see the tomb he was placed in. Muhammad never claimed to be God so yes he died just like any other man.

Your thinking is faulty if all it would take is for Muhammed to claim to be a God.
Your Jesus can't even fly on a winged horse! Some god.

Religion, so juvenile. It's like actually wondering who is stronger, super man or the hulk. Juvenile I say!

My god did this. (Claimed to be a god).
Well, my god did this. (Flew on a winged horse).

My daddy can beat up your daddy! It's Juvenile!

1 Corinthians 13:11 ►
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
Perhaps it is time we acted like adults and put away our childish thinking. There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know".

[Difflugia]

Your argument was that resurrection into a physical, earthly form was necessarily historical because early Christians believed that there was a resurrection in some form. My rebuttal is that if the early Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection, then by the same logic, that's only evidence that the resurrection was spiritual. The earliest sources we have, Paul and Mark, are ambiguous about what kind of resurrection occurred. Paul berates believers that ask him what kind of body Jesus was raised into by talking about various kinds of flesh, including the apparent claim that he was raised into a "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44). Mark doesn't describe the body of Jesus at all, but only that the tomb is open, Jesus is raised, he is somewhere else, and the disciples will see him in Galilee. This is just as consistent with Paul's spiritual body as with Matthew's earthly body.

The problem with your "spiritual body" argument is the that Paul used the Greek word "soma" or "σῶμα" to describe this spiritual body. Soma means the body both of men or animals.

The phrase "spiritual body" (σῶμα πνευματικόν) literally means a "body of spirit" or a "body of breath" or something similar. If your argument is that the word "body" must refer to a body of flesh, then Paul's phrase is an oxymoron.

So for example when in 1 Cor 10:4 Paul says this: "3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." This reference comes from the Old Testament

Exodus 17:6
Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Numbers 20:11
And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.

Does this read like it was spiritual water or real water to drink and it was made in a supernatural way? By Paul using the word 'soma' it means that there was an actual physical body that was made in a supernatural way.

I'm pretty sure that Paul was using that episode as metaphor. Do you also think that the rock that the water came out of was literally Jesus?

The test for confusion is not if someone from the 21st century finds it confusing but how would someone from the first century interpret this verse with their beliefs and traditions. So it takes a little more than you simply declaring it was confusing. Why would someone in the 1st century think it was confusing with the beliefs that they had.

What did I say was confusing? I talked about Paul's phrasing being ambiguous, if that's what you mean. Paul talked about different kinds of bodies without ever actually saying what kind of body Jesus was raised into, which means it can be read a number of ways. That's what ambiguous means.

If that resurrection is what the early Christians believed, then Luke's story of conversations with a walking, talking Jesus could reasonably be allegorical representations of visions as reported by early Christians, the "eyewitnesses."

How would this explain the facts that NT Wright spoke of above?
Like

• This community would not have suddenly begun to believe in the single resurrection of the Messiah– who wasn’t even supposed to die

Despite this not being a "fact," but Wright's speculative opinion, it's not incompatible with a spiritual resurrection being portrayed allegorically as a physical resurrection. What isn't explained is why a physical resurrection would be represented in the earliest sources as spiritual if the resurrection were a historical occurrence and the sources were attempting to relate history.

• and then recklessly live their lives witnessing to this belief.

Christians now recklessly live their lives witnessing to this belief and they're not witness to anything physical, either.

• Along with moving the day of worship

The earliest unambiguous references to Sunday as the day of Christian worship come from the second century.

Really because Luke says this; "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Luke 24:39 So yes Luke's account expressly says that Jesus's body was raised from the dead. That is definitely clear what he means. Refuted again.

I don't think you know what "refuted" means.

Paul contrasts being born into a "body of life" (σῶμα ψυχικόν, usually translated as "natural body") and being raised into a "body of spirit" (σῶμα πνευματικόν). Luke's Jesus says that he is not a "spirit" (πνεῦμα). What does that mean? Does having a body of spirit mean the same as being a spirit? If not, what does Paul mean? If so, is Luke's Jesus contradicting Paul? All you've apparently refuted is that Paul and Luke had the same idea of what kind of body Jesus was resurrected into.

Since your argument is that Luke's story can't be allegorical, I don't have to show that it is, only that it in principle could be. If you instead want to weigh relative probabilities (which would probably be a more interesting debate, anyway), then we could do that next.

I am not even sure how you can say that made a case that your allegorical theory is even possible in principle.

I have refuted every argument you have made for your allegorical theory.
We have established that Luke said that the resurrection was bodily Luke 24:39
We have established that Paul also said it was a physical resurrection because of his use of the word 'soma'.
We have established that the resurrection was the central message of Christianity, not some allegorical message.
We have established that the message of the resurrection was very early within a few years or some say months of the resurrection.

That's why we have to go through these arguments one at a time. The claims you're making are dubious or simply wrong. A long and malleable list of bogus claims is difficult to address. It was an intentional debate tactic used by the late Duane Gish, now informally known as the Gish gallop.

1. Luke does say that the resurrection was bodily, but that's specifically one of the parts that I'm claiming as allegory and is the point of this discussion.
2. Your argument that Paul's use of soma means a physical body even when it's qualified with pneumatikon is no more than an unsupported claim and a facile one at that.
3. You keep conflating the spiritual resurrection of Paul and Mark with a physical resurrection without offering any reason to think that conflation is valid.
4. The earliest reference we have to Christ's resurrection is Galatians, generally dated to the early A.D. 50s. Anything earlier than that is speculative.

[Bust Nak]

This community would not have suddenly begun to believe in the single resurrection of the Messiah– who wasn’t even supposed to die – and then recklessly live their lives witnessing to this belief.

That's a pretty dubious premise. We have people in 2022, believing in a flat Earth; we have QAnon believers throwing their life savings away one failed prediction after another; we have Covid deniers on their death bed calling it a hoax. So why wouldn't a religious community suffering from a devastating setback, bounce right back with renewed fervor?

[JoeyKnothead]

Couple small wordular edits...
Another'n. Sorry, I ain't got me no squiggly line...

[Replying to Tcg in post #339]

What facts?

We can start with these.

Jesus died by crucifixion.

Even a preponderance of evidence don't make a fact.

Considering claims of his "virgin, begat of God hisself birth" there, it's a bit goofy to just start off with how he's alleged to've died.

He was buried.
His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
The tomb was empty (the most contested).
The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
The resurrection was the central message.
They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
The Church was born and grew.
Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

These here're the same problem... Without evidence of human-god offspring being viable, we can't even show he got born to've had any of that occur about him.

Just quoting folks ain't putting facts to nothing.

Got a birth certificate? Got some way to show gods can impregnate human women?

You've got your cart so out in front of your horse, you'll ride til sundown before you can even attach it the wrong way anyway.

[Tcg]

Muhammad never claimed to be God so yes he died just like any other man.

Even those who claim to be god die just like any other humans. Claims, whatever they may be, do nothing to change this fact.


Tcg