Yes or No?

[Athetotheist]

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. (Matthew 28:2-3)

Did Mary Magdalene see this happen or did she not?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #40

So say someone has a different belief then i do. It doesn't matter. My personal experience would make up reality. Of course other people could influence my personal beliefs, but outside of the self there is no provable personal noexperience. And it just might be the case that the God of Christianity is a personal God, while all other God's outside of myself are impersonal and belonging to others.

You seem to be interpreting Christianity as a kind of solipsistic belief which allows you to conveniently discount the observations and experiences of others. What gives you the idea that the deities of others are any less personal to them than yours is to you, or the idea that "it doesn't matter"? It might feel good to assume that your personal experience "would make up reality", but that would be a pretty simplistic and immature way to look at life, wouldn't it?

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #40

So say someone has a different belief then i do. It doesn't matter. My personal experience would make up reality. Of course other people could influence my personal beliefs, but outside of the self there is no provable personal noexperience. And it just might be the case that the God of Christianity is a personal God, while all other God's outside of myself are impersonal and belonging to others.

You seem to be interpreting Christianity as a kind of solipsistic belief which allows you to conveniently discount the observations and experiences of others. What gives you the idea that the deities of others are any less personal to them than yours is to you, or the idea that "it doesn't matter"? It might feel good to assume that your personal experience "would make up reality", but that would be a pretty simplistic and immature way to look at life, wouldn't it?

Well you call it simplistic and immature, however it is just true, we can only live our lives and experience our lives. We will never experience what others experience.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #40

So say someone has a different belief then i do. It doesn't matter. My personal experience would make up reality. Of course other people could influence my personal beliefs, but outside of the self there is no provable personal noexperience. And it just might be the case that the God of Christianity is a personal God, while all other God's outside of myself are impersonal and belonging to others.

You seem to be interpreting Christianity as a kind of solipsistic belief which allows you to conveniently discount the observations and experiences of others. What gives you the idea that the deities of others are any less personal to them than yours is to you, or the idea that "it doesn't matter"? It might feel good to assume that your personal experience "would make up reality", but that would be a pretty simplistic and immature way to look at life, wouldn't it?

Well you call it simplistic and immature, however it is just true, we can only live our lives and experience our lives. We will never experience what others experience.

That doesn't negate the validity of the experiences of others----neither does it render every experience valid.

The point is that our experiences aren't valid just because we assume that they are or choose to call them such.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #40

So say someone has a different belief then i do. It doesn't matter. My personal experience would make up reality. Of course other people could influence my personal beliefs, but outside of the self there is no provable personal noexperience. And it just might be the case that the God of Christianity is a personal God, while all other God's outside of myself are impersonal and belonging to others.

You seem to be interpreting Christianity as a kind of solipsistic belief which allows you to conveniently discount the observations and experiences of others. What gives you the idea that the deities of others are any less personal to them than yours is to you, or the idea that "it doesn't matter"? It might feel good to assume that your personal experience "would make up reality", but that would be a pretty simplistic and immature way to look at life, wouldn't it?

Well you call it simplistic and immature, however it is just true, we can only live our lives and experience our lives. We will never experience what others experience.

That doesn't negate the validity of the experiences of others----neither does it render every experience valid.

The point is that our experiences aren't valid just because we assume that they are or choose to call them such.

The one truth Rene Descartes said he couldn't negate was that he thought that therefor he was "I think therefor I am"... He doubted everything else.

I am saying a similar thing... I can not deny myself.

Now could I be wrong about things? Certainly I can be wrong about anything, I myself am the one to admit truth isnt really knowable. But the point of #3 was not that everything I believe is true, but that God could be personally true, and a personal God, and all other Gods could be impersonal. That personal experiences are fundamentally different then observing others who might claim to have personal experiences.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #44

God could be personally true, and a personal God, and all other Gods could be impersonal.

It seems to me that you simply prefer to believe that someone else's concept of God is impersonal and that only your concept of God is personal.

Do you know enough about everyone else's concept of God to be making that assumption?

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #44

God could be personally true, and a personal God, and all other Gods could be impersonal.

It seems to me that you simply prefer to believe that someone else's concept of God is impersonal and that only your concept of God is personal.

Do you know enough about everyone else's concept of God to be making that assumption?

It is a fact that my personal experience is fundamentally different then observing someone else experience. I will never know what they know period. That is fact. It isn't even that I prefer this, but that I have no choice but the experience this truth.

Now could it be that their experience with their God is personal? I suppose it is possible, however it certainly does not negate my own personal experiences. Which is something I know for fact exists, "I think therefor I am", while everyone else I would have no way to confirm their personal experiences are valid.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #44

God could be personally true, and a personal God, and all other Gods could be impersonal.

It seems to me that you simply prefer to believe that someone else's concept of God is impersonal and that only your concept of God is personal.

Do you know enough about everyone else's concept of God to be making that assumption?

It is a fact that my personal experience is fundamentally different then observing someone else experience. I will never know what they know period. That is fact. It isn't even that I prefer this, but that I have no choice but the experience this truth.

Now could it be that their experience with their God is personal? I suppose it is possible, however it certainly does not negate my own personal experiences. Which is something I know for fact exists, "I think therefor I am", while everyone else I would have no way to confirm their personal experiences are valid.

With the inconsistency in the resurrection accounts, how are we supposed to know if MM had the personal experience of seeing a shining angel sitting on the stone or----at the same time----had the personal experience of not seeing one there?

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #44

God could be personally true, and a personal God, and all other Gods could be impersonal.

It seems to me that you simply prefer to believe that someone else's concept of God is impersonal and that only your concept of God is personal.

Do you know enough about everyone else's concept of God to be making that assumption?

It is a fact that my personal experience is fundamentally different then observing someone else experience. I will never know what they know period. That is fact. It isn't even that I prefer this, but that I have no choice but the experience this truth.

Now could it be that their experience with their God is personal? I suppose it is possible, however it certainly does not negate my own personal experiences. Which is something I know for fact exists, "I think therefor I am", while everyone else I would have no way to confirm their personal experiences are valid.

With the inconsistency in the resurrection accounts, how are we supposed to know if MM had the personal experience of seeing a shining angel sitting on the stone or----at the same time----had the personal experience of not seeing one there?

You may always refer back to my post #37 for the three explanation I gave. #2 and #3, you are assuming to be wrong, or ignoring for this last response you spoke, though i think all 3 of them are rationally valid.

Responding to this post, it is possible our interpretation of them being inconsistent is faulty interpretations. We are left to a few sentences on paper to come to conclusions. I believe it is possible our interpretation of inconsistencies could fail us, and they both could be true.


This could be a Literary Paradox or Logical Paradox... "Paradox: a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #48

"Paradox: a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."

The Law of Non-Contradiction:
A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

This means that Mary Magdalene could not see a shining angel sitting on the stone and not see a shining angel sitting on the same stone at the same time.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #48

"Paradox: a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."

The Law of Non-Contradiction:
A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

This means that Mary Magdalene could not see a shining angel sitting on the stone and not see a shining angel sitting on the same stone at the same time.

what about this statement:
"Quantum physics has demonstrated that tiny particles can exist in multiple places at once, but a new method may prove that it is possible for larger, visible objects to also exist in multiple places."
https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2020 ... e-possible

How do you think the law of non-contradiction and that maek sense with one another?


Edit: this site give an explaantion:
"The law of non-contradiction refers to any proposition that is well defined. Many propositions that we would take for granted to be well defined (e.g. "the electron is inside the circle") is not well defined in the framework of quantum mechanics."

But if that is true, in order for the Law of Non-contradiction to be a valid argument here, our proposition would have to be well defined. It certainly is not well defined. We dont know exactly what Mary did that day.