Entropy vs Christ (A scientific basis for Jesus Christ Part II)

in religion •  8 years ago  (edited)

2 weeks ago Sunday post from me created quite a stir and a rather robust debate.


https://steemit.com/religion/@gavvet/is-there-a-scientific-basis-for-jesus-christ
Some follow up posts were even spawned or highlighted as a result of it.
https://steemit.com/religion/@alexbeyman/the-fossil-argument-for-the-existence-of-a-historical-jesus
https://steemit.com/jesus/@miguel12/the-biological-father-of-jesus
https://steemit.com/religion/@dwinblood/civil-response-inspired-by-gavvet-post-concerning-science-and-jesus-christ
https://steemit.com/religion/@dwinblood/part-two-gavvet-reply-a-hypothesis-is-not-proof-in-science-jesus-science-debate-civil-and-invited
https://steemit.com/science/@business/is-there-a-religious-basis-for-science
https://steemit.com/jesus/@virtualgrowth/ideas-and-thoughts-on-of-jesus-christ-metaphor-symbolism-to-read-and-or-discuss
https://steemit.com/religion/@princewahaj/jesus-christ-never-claimed-that-he-is-god-instead-it-is-mentioned-in-several-places-of-bible-to-worship-only-one-god-and-why
If I missed your follow up please link in the comments below.

I thank those who took the time to engage with the introductory post.

Many comments were made as a result and many of them were respectful… some were not. But I think a fun time was had by most, except perhaps for the one or two that appear to have totally lost it (the plot or their cool).

A few ground rules

I’d like to lay down a few ground rules and disclaimers at the start of this week’s post…

  1. The previous post was an experiment to gauge how the levels of tolerance have changed on the platform.
  2. It was merely an introduction to some of my thoughts.
  3. This post is not intended to present any empirical evidence for the matters under scrutiny.
  4. Someone suggested that a “thought experiment” may be a more appropriate description of what’s presented. If that will make it more palatable and less detestable, I concur.
  5. Many go to great lengths to forcibly widen the gaps between science and religion, this is about finding similarities.
  6. I find scientific knowledge and understanding enriches and broadens my understanding of religious doctrine and beliefs.
  7. I find many profitable metaphors on both sides… this is discussion of some of them.
  8. If you don’t like it (the thought experiment and metaphors) you are more than welcome to browse the copious amounts of other content on steemit, or if that is unsatisfactory there is this thing called the World Wide Web that I can highly recommend.

Science is about the How - Religion is about the Why

That is why the two appear to be mutually exclusive and why many choose to try to separate the two as much as possible…

For myself, having a healthy foot in both camps, I like to find areas of compatibility between these two domains where principles appear to overlap.

Previously I mentioned that Christ’s claim to be the Son of God was necessary in order for His other claim (relating to possession of power over death) to valid based on our current understanding of genetics and inheritance. I also remarked that this was not very remarkable since many myths, legends, religions etc. claim special parentage for their hero/special child (more could be discussed on this on another occasion).

I then started to examine Christ’s claim to be the Savior from sin. I introduced that we could possibly equate the concept of sin with disorder or absence of law because sin is disobedience or transgression of law.

I explore this further today.

I suggested that perhaps the laws of thermodynamics could be examined.

Temperature and heat are simply ways to measure the levels and distribution of energy within a system. The way the energy flows in an attempts to reach equilibrium brings about entropy, or that ordered things will always tend to a less ordered state. It’s a simple case of energy following the path of least resistance.

Matter appears simply to be highly organized forms of energy. Everything in the observable universe is about the organizing, disordering and re-ordering of energy into simple and more complex forms. The human brain is so far the most complex entity we have discovered in the known universe but at is core its simply about electrical impulses, the flow of electrons, some of the most simple energy interactions known.

The web of Life creates order by tapping into the disordered energy flow that originates from our sun or the core of the earth and uses this energy to create order. Life creates order by decreasing disorder and excreting disorder in the form of byproducts and waste.

This is not very different from stars, stars build complex atoms by decreasing entropy levels… they in essence excrete light.

By extrapolation it is possible that dark energy could simply be the excreta of galaxy clusters and other macro elements of the universe and this is sufficient to drive the expansion of the universe.

Each process that creates order in the cosmos does so by ejecting disordered energy. This excreted energy becomes the fuel for the next lower order of the cosmos. Nearly all earth life (excepting some extremophiles) is dependent on the sun's ejected disorder (energy in the form of light).
It is interesting that Christ claims to be the way the truth and the life… the light of the world. (More on the depth and breadth of this later)

Christ saves from not only sin but all forms of disorder.

Where there is:
Illness, He brings healing,
Morning, He brings comfort,
Pain, He brings relief,
Despair, He brings hope,
Sin, He brings remission.
Etc.

He descended below all things that He could rise as above all things, that he would know according to the flesh how to succor his people.

He took all these things upon himself in Gethsemane, and when we reach out to him in faith we pass these things over to Him, we let go…

We let go… through faith, of the disorder in our lives and thereby the system is able to increase in order again… the waste, the dross of our lives is ejected and we are able to move forward and upward as new creatures, born again, reordered and reorganized in His image and so we strive on to our better selves by letting go of that disorder that would burden us, captivate us, and drag us down.

Entropy loss is the sacrifice or repentance required to bring about the higher state. The entire process is symbolized by the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The bread representing the body or life of Christ, the wine the shed blood, death and mission of Christ. The bread is broken chewed, swallowed and digested. Each a further degree of dissolution. Until it is carried about the body by the circulatory system to become the building blocks of new cells. As Christ disseminates himself and is internalized he becomes part of us.

We are built up we become more than we were before,

we change,
we grow,
we become.

The sacrifices required and the repentance made, represent the waste eliminated to achieve the more ordered state.

Hell is when we refuse re-ordering and embrace entropy, we will to be a law unto our own selves. As long as we are in this attitude we cannot improve, we cannot be re-ordered we cannot grow or progress. In short we are damned. Not by someone else but by our own willfulness, not willing to submit to anything that would bring about our own improvement and if we cherish this attitude we will be locked in this state forever.

Unable to progress because our own wills prevent us from submitting to the laws necessary in order to progress.

An eternal fire of entropy.

Never advancing beyond a highly disordered state. Trapped by our own willfulness.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I can attest to the power of Christ. My life completely turned around the minute I acknowledged him. Opportunities presented themselves. Certain truths were revealed to me. And people I never expected came into my life. Now I feel his presence every day. And whenever I have needed anything, he has always been there to provide it in 1 form or another. The difference now is I see his work, and I am grateful in advance for it all ....

You might get a kick out of this post, then.

Awesome to hear Jesus still working miracles through the Holy Ghost today. Me too, am just a product of his Grace. Me and my family are so blessed and Jesus gets all the praise for that.

With regards to Science and Religion, my point of view is simple. God (the Holy Trinity) created the Universe and all that exists. Thus, God created Science, it is how everything fits together. One cannot remove the one from the other. Simple.

I agree with you. For me it is almost impossible to see the complexity with which even a single cell is made up of and the ways our body works in unison and not believe that there was intelligent design. Could I be wrong? Of course, but if I were to find a watch in the middle of the forest I wouldn't think that nature just put it together. Nature causes entropy and disorder. For dust and cells to somehow turn into the beings we are today is just too large a stretch of the imagination for me.

this is called anecdotal evidence

To the outside observer, certainly.

There is also something known as a 'body of evidence'.

It is subjective since I'm the observer in some of the experiences, but there is a body of evidence around the results of prayer and faith in something greater than oneself.

The body of evidence is that prayer is not effective http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

The only body of evidence that could be linked to prayer working could just as easily be explained as positive thinking and the placebo effect.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

The concept of measuring "effective prayer" is flawed. God is not a vending machine. The vast majority of things asked for in prayer are not in accordance with God's will or His knowledge of what is good for His children. Do a similar study for the number of child requests for candy that get fulfilled by responsible parents. Are those childish requests a good test of whether it is worthwhile for a child to request things from a parent?

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

"Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! -- Matthew 7:7-11

With a dose of confirmation bias.

Yes I understand what you are saying. Your own personal testimony is something that cannot be disputed. What Christ means to you is not dependent on anything but your relationship with him. That's why sharing what you have gone through and your personal testimony should not be offensive to anyone. It is spoken out of love to others and not hate. Christians can disagree with others without hating them. The media portrays Christians as a judgmental group of people, and they do have a point. Some people do see others not following their beliefs to be morally inferior.

But God preached about love and Jesus was friends with tax collectors and prostitutes. He didn't love what they were doing, but the person behind all of the things they were doing.

It is a rare site that allows people with strong religious beliefs and those with no interest in that at all to be able to dialogue and listen to one another.

One side isn't stupid or lesser than the other, we just have different perceptions from our experiences in life.

"Your own personal testimony is something that cannot be disputed."

But also can't be confirmed or verified by the person experiencing it. There is also no reason for anyone else to believe it was anything more than a hallucination. We know the human mind is susceptible to seeing things that aren't there.

Absolutely. People receive enlightenment in a variety of ways. Some like @rok-sivante had his eyes opened by an ayuwasca experience.

It is our freedom to share and others freedom to accept or reject what we may tell them. But even a dream can open someone's eyes and change their life.

Hebrews 11:1 (BBE) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the sign that the things not seen are true.

Everything can't be proven, but some things that cannot are commonly accepted. I believe we should question everything along with our experiences and come to our own conclusion.

"Everything can't be proven" Can you prove that? ;)

I am a Lutheran, but also a devout believer in science. That being said, just because you can't see something or prove it with scientific formulae doesn't mean it isn't real. Religion and science are on a collision course as we learn more about our world and universe. Who's to say that "God" isn't an alien being that "created" mankind in his image through genetic manipulation? Maybe I'm crazy for saying that. Or maybe it's even crazier to think that with all the billions of inhabitable planets in the galaxy, there are no life forms more advanced than our own. I love this discussion you've started, and remember, many of the great scientific advancements were initially discredited by the church as blasphemy. Religion and science are advancing together

Truth will always gravitate toward truth whether discovered empirically or "revealed"

Very wise words

would you mind elaborating? the point of empiricism is to give us an unshakable foundation of truth, so to speak. if i drop acid and say that the truth was "revealed" to me, how can that carry any weight without any empirical evidence to back it up?

Exactly... revealed truth should not contradict empirical evidence if there is enough of the latter.

There's no stopping the Truth!

Are you open to the idea that the truth may not involve any god?

@juvyjabian, sounds interesting, I'll have to check it out.
Certainly we can help. Wonder what help may be possible. Will read the post later. Couldn't open it on my computer at this moment. Have learned about numerous disease, having my own to learn about as well.

I'm not sure that even means anything.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Religion is pointing out the author of life and redeemer and also the savior and the creator but that wont save the people.
Science is believing what is seen, if you do not see anything that cannot be the science which always seeks the proof.
where as the faith, beyond the religion and science, hoping the unseen world i.e heaven, which is real. the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is overcoming the world, which is filled with the lust of eyes, and lust of flesh, and the pride of Life.
Faith is the substance of the things hoped for, and an evidence of unseen thing.
people make a study and know about the God in the theology or divinity studies for which they need some academic qualifications, but the real devotee, know God personally,who doesn't need any academic qualification they experienced the God and had intimate relation with him just by faith in the Jesus Christ and the word of God. by the wisdom of the world , the wise and the prudent knew not God. the God had made the wisdom of the world foolish and, destroyed the wisdom of the wise even.
"it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe the Jesus and the work on Calvary"
many scribes and, pharisees of the Jesus days, failed the to recognize the works of the Holy Spirit, received not the Jesus as their God and savior. Beyond that, they accused Jesus as the head of the Beelzebul. then Jesus warned them, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be for given unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men neither in this world nor the world to come. that is why, this forgiveness of their sin must be proclaimed in the entire universe.
so the word of God is fire. preach it with the sense of urgency. God be with you sir!

"Religion is pointing out the author of life and redeemer and also the savior and the creator but that wont save the people."

You are jumping the gun a little. It hasn't been established there is an author of life and redeemer or savior.

You've put much stock in faith but why is it a virtue? If you value truth, faith is a hindrance.

we all like the truth but we failed to practice it, and live upon that. why because all human beings are in the image of the God but our inward built in character is satanic, devilish, and evil. we try to be truthful, faithful but we lairs and unfaithful. we are told not to trust the men, kings but the Lord God Almighty and His word. then you will be fruitful. so believe the Jesus Christ and The Bible. get saved.

Why should I believe the bible is true? Why should I believe the god of the bible exists? Why do you not believe in Zeus, Odin or the countless other gods invented by humanity?

You read the Bible and either find it to be credible or you don't. There is plenty of evidence that we have an accurate record of what the authors wrote. Now, do you believe the authors?

You won't know unless you apply yourself and actually want to find God. If you don't want to find Him, you won't.

@stan reading the bible alone is completely insufficient to establish its credibility. There is massive lack of evidence for the extraordinary claims made.

If by "genetic manipulation" you mean "created from earth", I totally agree ! :)

Here is the verse from Genesis:
“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2:7‬ ‭NIV‬‬
http://bible.com/111/gen.2.7.niv

Also the Hebrew word for man (adam) might be related to the Hebrew word for ground (adamah) according to New International Version comments.

Be blessed !

You can't prove a negative. Unless the world is a vast simulation and Schrodinger's Cat is taken to the extreme... atoms did not suddenly exist when we observed them. Electricity did not pop into existence when we observed it. X-rays did not pop into existence only because we had a machine.

Scientists who disbelieve something simply because it has not been measured are closing the door to wonder.

It is true that something they cannot measure may not exist, yet as the examples I provided... sometimes they do. Yet sometimes they don't.

As to your take on God. It is so nebulous and ultimately incomprehensible to us that it literally could be MANY things and we'd have trouble proving/or disproving.

  • One popular possibility in mainstream is that this is all a simulation of some kind much like one we'd make in a computer, but far more complex.
  • Then you have the vast variety of religions in history. Why is one without proof accepted, and the others laughed at and called fools?

"Scientists who disbelieve something simply because it has not been measured are closing the door to wonder."

They are also purposefully closing the door to falsehoods and thereby protecting the integrity of their held beliefs. What is more valuable to you, wonder or truth? Should we believe in leprechauns or anything else someone could easily fabricate just because we can't prove a negative? That doesn't seem like a very practical way to function.

Believing everything imaginable exists is not the null hypothesis.

I don't believe everything imaginable exists. I also don't believe we've measured everything, or likely ever will.

Pretty simple use the scientific method. It doesn't say anything about something not existing because it has not been measured. It really only deals with things we can measure.

So closing mind isn't scientific either. Might as well be a religion. ;)

You don't have to close your mind to not believe something for which there is no evidence. If you value holding true beliefs, believing in something without reason would be foolish.

You keep saying "there is no evidence". That is false.
There is ton's of evidence. There is no absolute "proof".
But court cases are decided all the time without "proof".
The archeological records that exist exceed all other sources of historical information in quality and quantity.
So, we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that real, credible eyewitnesses observed Jesus do and say amazing things.
Now you, the jury, need to decide whether they are credible or not.

No @stan there is not a ton of evidence. There is a massive lack of evidence.

Nesting limit reached

You don't have to close your mind to not believe something for which there is no evidence. If you value holding true beliefs, believing in something without reason would be foolish.
I didn't say I believed it. I said science could not prove or disprove it. I am an atheist / deist.

He likely did not see your latest response since you replied to me, and not @stan.

You'd be surprised at how observant he is.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

"just because you can't see something or prove it with scientific formulae blabla"
Yeah well this isn't to scientific to proof or disproof such claim, but rather to the people who claim it.

Damn... for someone who says you are a "devout believer in science", you should open once in a while a book of philosophy of science, just to see how it works...

And most of what you wrote here would be categorized by the skeptical enquirer (and alike) as fallacies.

Well if your Alien theory is right then the bible would be wrong. Can you please elaborate on how religion is advancing? It would appear religion is continuously just yielding ground to science as we understand more.

I don't think there is any ground that the Bible has yielded to Science.
Certainly there are extra-biblical claims that certain religious organizations have made that they have had to back down on - like "the earth is the center of the universe" and so on, but nowhere does the Bible claim that (other than in poetic statements like even scientists may make about "sunrise" and "sunset" and other observer centric metaphors.)

The solar system, the shape of the planet, noah's ark. These are all things the bible/religion has yielded to science. Labeling these things "observer centric metaphors" proves my point. These were not considered metaphors at one time but that ground has been yielded to science.

Do you have a reference to where the Bible makes a false claim that is not merely a metaphor?

Here's what it has to say about the shape of the planet:

@stan You are loading the question. Envoking metaphors proves my point. When go down the road of saying various claims are only metaphor you've also given up all credibility on divine origins. It makes the bible useless since it becomes impossible to decipher what is meant to be metaphor and what isn't.

Anyways I name a very strong part of the bible that has been disproven by multiple disciplines in science. Noah's ark is a laughable tale.

Yet Jesus Himself gives it total credibility:

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. -- Matthew 24:36-39

So, the second most important thing he has promised to do is "just as it was in the days of Noah."

On the one hand you claim that some miracles are "too small" and have some natural explanation. But it they get "too big" then they are "laughable".

I'll double down on you. There was a point in Joshua where the Lord stopped the earth from rotating (without sloshing the Atlantic ocean across Africa at 1000 miles per hour). No problem. He did just for Joshua's convenience in winning a battle. (Joshua 10:12-13.

And in another case he made the earth rotate backwards (without spilling a drop) just to provide an impossible, supernatural sign for King Ahaz.

This shall be the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing that He has spoken: 8"Behold, I will cause the shadow on the stairway, which has gone down with the sun on the stairway of Ahaz, to go back ten steps." So the sun's shadow went back ten steps on the stairway on which it had gone down. -- Isaiah 38:8

Laughable, right? Unless you understand that God has the same kind of control over every particle of this universe as if it was a simulation that he can simply, pause, rewind, or even restart at any point in time.

@stan you are just getting desperate now. Are you saying you believe in the story of Noah because of the claimed magic for which your god is capable? Again I'll have to see a reason to believe your god even exists let alone has these magical powers you claim before I can consider that to be any sort of valid answer.

What I do know is that there is absolutely no evidence to corroborate the story of Noah and we have plenty of scientific evidence it would be impossible.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

I get there by a different path.

  1. Archeologists tell me the Bible is the most authenticated historical document in existence.
  2. I read the document and found the authors to be credible.
  3. Their accounts convinced me that Jesus was God in the flesh.
  4. Jesus says that the accounts in the Scripture are true including Noah and the others I mentioned. Q.E.D.

So, I don't need any other evidence. Given that Jesus demonstrated over and over again that He had complete mastery over the laws of physics, I believe that God can make something as big as a global flood happen without leaving a trace.

I do understand that if someone just tosses the story of Noah's ark in your lap without all that background, you might be a tad bit skeptical. :o)

Not necessarily, the bible doesn't say exactly who god is, except his name, which certainly isn't "God". It's Yeweh, or Jehova, depending on the translation. Interestingly enough, the Sumerians wrote about this thousands of years before biblical times, speaking of an alien race called the Anunnaki, and a "man from the sky" who's name was the Sumerian equivelant of Yeweh. They said he added parts of himself to us using machines. Now the bible says god came from the heavens, so why on earth would he not be an alien? He's certainly not from earth. I don't necessarily believe any of this, just a point of discussion. I loooove CONTROVERSY

Um, because God tells us he is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End and that he existed before anything else was made. He made the universe, He is not part of the universe.

Now perhaps he has created other beings superior to us in our present form and not bothered to tell us, but they are not God.

Ahh the ancient aliens hypothesis. It certainly makes for interesting reading and cool sci-fi like Stargate.

Muy buen materia gracias por compartir

el gusto es mio

If you don’t like it (the thought experiment and metaphors) you are more than welcome to browse the copious amounts of other content on steemit, or if that is unsatisfactory there is this thing called the World Wide Web that I can highly recommend.

Hehehe... brilliant.

By extrapolation it is possible that dark energy could simply be the excreta of galaxy clusters and other macro elements of the universe and this is sufficient to drive the expansion of the universe.

This could be another very interesting topic.

@gavvet -- what would you say to the argument that 666 is actually an entropy 'percentage'? For instance, once 66.6% of a population local, regional, or global, seeks that entropy you mention, it begins the process of catastrophic destruction.

Just a theory I've bounced around in my head for a while. Thank you for creating the opportunity to get it out!

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Interesting, two thirds majority...

I may post about it... but is in John's revelations a lot that is astronomical. Check out non other than Sir Isaac Newtons... Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John

Its the last part where your post, and religion in general always goes wrong for me: only Jesus can be the catalyst for improving yourself. Unfortunately I find that utterly unpalatable; I am not living in hell, I have problems like the faithful, but I dont ask a magic man in the sky to solve the problems for me, I go through the process of living (or death (entropy)) and things move on.
I sincerely hope this comment isnt offensive to anyone, its not my intent. I have met some wonderful people of faith, and some wonderful people with no faith, the only difference is the faithful attribute everything good they have to the devine.

I'm with you, Jesus isn't the only catalyst for improving yourself. But, that's not what he's about. Jesus doesn't exist for us. He exists for him and his glory. So, the very concept of evaluating him on the basis of what he can do for us is backwards.

He does love us and wants us to be successful, but he wants us to serve him. Through that process we are improved, perhaps not in a situational sense, but in a spiritual and emotional sense.

'he wants us to serve him' I find to be very worrying, why would he want that? If you are a parent, do you want your children to serve you? I think not. You want your children to flourish and be happy, and if you really love them, then whichever path leads to their flourishing is just fine. Perhaps as a parent you want them to be a scientist, but they choose to become a lay clergyman, does that matter so long as they are following their own path, can be happy and live a fulfilled life?

Perhaps you fail to see the gravity of who we're talking about. Jesus is God. God must be worshipped and served. He commands it because he is the only One who deserves it.

Your analogy is correct to a certain extent because God identifies with us a Father and therefore the reason we want our children to succeed is because he imprinted that on us from his own character. But, primarily he is God, which means he is ultimate authority.

As a parent, I am authority for my children. If they disobey, I discipline because I love them too much to see them go wrong. But, I don't deserve their worship, because I am only their secondary authority. God deserves their worship and obedience as their primary authority and he delegates some of his authority to us as parents and leaders in society.

Bottom line: Jesus is God and God deserves worship. Regardless of what he does for you, he deserves worship because of who he is.

But if I dont worship him that should be ok with him, because if he really can see into my thoughts he knows its not a malicious or rebellious act. He knows I try to be a good person and the remorse I have when I hurt others.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Also, this life is essentially an audition for a position in the Lord's coming government and membership in His spiritual family. He needs people He can trust in those positions of responsibility. Unwillingness to enthusiastically acknowledge his authority is a key indicator that you can't be trusted with bigger things.

Then the servant who had received two talents also came and said, ‘Master, you entrusted me with two talents. See, I have gained two more.’ His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master!’ --Matthew 25:23

Perhaps you will enjoy a future discussion on exactly that matter... stay tuned.

@scalextrix That would work if he was flawed like we are. He's forgiving but only to the repentant. God cannot tolerate one tiny shred of sin or disobedience because He is holy. For him to permit sin would be unjust and He would cease to be God. From the moment we make our first mistake we're screwed.

People say, "but God is loving"! Which is true. But, just because God is love doesn't mean that trumps His other attributes like justice and holines.

The solution then was to send a worthy substitute. That's who Jesus is. The only fully human, fully God being to ever walk this planet. He kept the whole law and never once sinned before God. Therefore, God allowed him to be the substitute for our sin. If you want to talk about injustice, an innocent God-man died to pay your right penalty for disobeying God.

So, no, he's not ok with you just trying your best. He has suffered the ultimate injustice on your behalf to satisfy His wrath for your sin. You deserve that wrath. I deserve that wrath. Without Christ, we will all be subject to the eternal wrath of God.

I agree with your core concept only in so far as it relates the spiritual. Yes, Christ came to reverse spiritual entropy and restore order. But, the result of sin on the physical universe was an irreversible curse of disorder and chaos.

The only way to escape entropy is the utter destruction of this world and the establishment of a new one. That is the promise for believer in Jesus, to reign with him in the new world. In that sense, we most certainly are freed from ultimate spiritual entropy.

However, we still live in a cursed world run by consequences of evil actions. Therefore, our situational physical entropy is still our curse to bear. Christ saves our spiritual, and promises to save the physical in the end, but until then the curse is real.

I heard some Catholic tendencies in your post. Are you Catholic?

Nope, not catholic... mormon.

I see much of what happens in the physical world as metaphorical or a "type" of the spiritual... and I understand the spiritual with greater depth by looking for real world equivalents. So the sacrament is symbolic of what occurs spiritually and that's the most important part.

Just because you and I do discourse occasionally. My wife is a former mormon (LDS). Her two elderly parents both in their late 80s are mormons and live with us. Every sunday the elders or other members will come see them. They have trouble making it to the church. I am an atheist/deist. I NEVER challenge their beliefs even though I view quite a few things wrong with the mormon faith. If people invite me to discuss, I will do so, but I truly believe that we all have a path and it is wrong of me to try to force you off the one you are on and onto mine. My path could totally be the wrong one for you and you very well could be right where you need to be. So even though I DO debate with you, I completely respect your right to your faith. I would never have debated science and religion with you, but you opened the door. By now you might think you invited a vampire into your house. :)

Let me ask you this. I come across you sitting on a train track quite comfortable and happy. I know that a train is coming and share that information with you. You tell me that is my opinion and state plainly that you don't believe me.

Where does my obligation to try to convince you end? After one try? After seven?

The problem we have is that this is not about choosing alternative paths to alternative destinations. This is life and death. The people sharing this with you believe that with all their heart.

So when you ask them to respect your right to be wrong they are caught is a very severe conflict: Which is the greater evil? To ignore your right to be wrong or to let you die because of it?

Oh I do understand this. Yet this true of any cult as well. Yet at what population of followers does a cult cease to be considered a cult and become a religion? Even Christianity was viewed as a cult at one time, same with many of the different denominations.

Now let's go with a non-Christian cult. They all instill their followers with imperatives. Things they truly believe must be done. That does not mean they are correct, and it has nothing to with science proving/disproving something which is the only thing I am addressing. I am NOT telling you that your religion is wrong, or why you should or should not speak about it. I'm only stating that science as a tool cannot prove or disprove it simply to it not being possible to get beyond the hypothesis stage in the scientific method. That's it.

Let me address what you spoke of from a Christian point of view. (Yes I was raised Christian and have many wonderful debates with Christian priests, ministers, pastors, who were friends).

Free Will.


God gave man free will supposedly. This is actually a pretty common belief outside of Christianity as well.
So why would a man be so arrogant as to tell a person to give up that free will or be damned? If you don't agree with me you are damned, you'll go to hell, etc.

Saving me


Now let's take another perspective. It isn't always the case, but in many denominations the concept comes up of "What about people that our missionaries never get to reach, to teach about Jesus? When they die are they damned?" To which I usually receive an answer that when they die they will be asked by God (or Jesus) himself.

So that leads to the question of WHY a mere man would think he should be damning people? If you as a man ask the question of another man, and they do not embrace the faith they are damned. Yet had you left them alone and they were not challenged with that question it would be God himself who asked them.
Who do you think I am more likely to believe you, or God?
So does that not kind of indicate that men are damning other men by forcing this choice upon them?

Let me spin that to a positive now. Perhaps men are living a very vile and evil life, and you believe they are likely to go to hell instead of heaven, so if they are not course corrected they may not even get asked by God.

I know quite a lot about the origin of the concept of Heaven and Hell. The concept of Heaven did exist in the Judaism as far as I can find. Yet Hell did not. In fact it was not added to Judaism until after those of this faith encountered people of the Zoroastrian faith (which was quite powerful at the time). Up until this point there was a reference to The Satan but that was simply a helper to God. The Zoroastrians had a dualistic system with a good being and an evil one in conflict, and heave and hell. It was after this that Judaism began to incorporate Heaven and Hell, and the idea of an evil being opposed to God. You see this changing of the faith to incorporate beliefs from religion continuing in history, even after Christ. December 25, is known to not be the true day that Christ would have been born. It was a very prominant pagan holiday. It was changed as such. The now popular appearance of Satan... that comes from Hades, and Pan (Greco Roman religions). In many cases they didn't fight "pagans" by forcing them to christianity, they changed Christianity to be more compelling to the pagans to switch.

Pointing to a lot of errors made by humans and even so-called "Christians" throughout history says nothing about the veracity of Biblical Christianity. It is a standard none of us can meet.

To be sure, we are dealing with a needle of truth in a haystack of lies - one constructed by satan, "the father of lies" as Jesus put it.

We know more about satan and Hell from what Jesus taught than any other source. That's another great reason to take it seriously.

At to your point about free will. God is recruiting people to serve in His government and become members of His family. He needs people who will be loyal and faithful and trustworthy with that kind of power. So he sets up the situation we find ourselves in. Plenty of free will opportunity to walk away and join satan's side. Since God has made it clear what joining satan means, whose fault is it if that's the choice you want to make?

Again, choose your side. Hell is not a threat, it is the default consequence of not choosing to accept a position in God's kingdom.

Appeals to authority are meaningless to me.

If I do good in my life and help people and will not bow and worship and that dooms me, so be it. I would never worship anyone so petty.

EDIT: Clarify. Even if there is a God, I will NOT worship them. I consider it petty and human like. My acts and my works should be how I am judged. If someone judges me in other ways, their problem, not mine. I do not believe I need to WORSHIP anything. Even if something created the universe, constructed me with their own hands, I need not worship them. If I made an army of robots it'd be kind of silly to make them worship me. Worship is a petty human concept. Which is another reason I don't buy into so much of it. It requires accepting APPEALS TO AUTHORITY. I will not.

That's fine. Your loss.

I truly respect your position as well. Having faith is illogical. But, we all have faith in something.

The difference is, my faith compels me to warn others that their faith is destroying them. There cannot be more than one path to God. If there were, Jesus was useless and unnecessary.

Loading...

There are many denominations of Christianity based on slight differences that are what Paul calls "disputable matters". We are all free to choose what makes sense to us. But that is not to say that you can stray arbitrarily far from the truth.

The only thing that matters is that we admit we can't meet God's standards and that He had to reach down and do it for us by suffering the consequences of our shortcomings for us.

That's it. All other religions (those made up by humans) continue to insist that there are things we can do to earn our own salvation. These are presumptive, arrogant and by their very nature offensive to God.

So, don't sweat the small stuff that divide us. Focus on the Only Thing that matters.

I see. I didn't realize Mormons held to a more literal interpretation of the sacraments (Christ internalized). Interesting.

The above post is probably the least of our disagreements. So, I'll leave it there. Interesting discussion!

They don't... this is my own personal metaphor that I consider as I ponder on the significance of the sacrament.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Why Jesus, and not say Zarathustra or Hercules and a few tens or hundreds of similar characters sunk into history?
The fact that European civilization is used Jesus, even though he was a preacher in the distant Jewish pastoral tribe, yet does not speak about his uniqueness.

Religion asks questions and doesn't answers on them at all.
For the most part questions are primitive and can captivate a person, who's too lazy to try to understand all by itself and delegates this to Superbeing - who knows all the best.
A science just answers the questions through observation and experiment.

So to say that "science is about the How - religion is about the Why" It is not quite correct, as for me.

The most atheistic book I've ever read is bible by the way.
Please don't try to mix the science with your personal hobby, such as religion - it's have nothing in common

The fact that European civilization is used Jesus, even though he was a preacher in the distant Jewish pastoral tribe, yet does not speak about his uniqueness.

No. History is the reason civilization 'is used Jesus'. The Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic church had a little bit to do with the way history unfolded. Jesus had something important to do with each of those. Care to disagree with that point?

I've flagged your comment for generally antagonistic debate style.

Unless you can give me a good reason for the following sentence, the flag will remain:

Please don't try to mix the science with your personal hobby, such as religion - it's have nothing in common

History is not a science, because it's just a collection of different opinions that's far away from truth and you can't check it by experiment

This is my opinion on the topic (A scientific basis for Jesus Christ Part II)
it has nothing in common with the science, but you have right to censore my opinion like you want.

How can you say that a book that starts out with the words, "In the beginning, God created..." is atheistic? It ends with John praying to Jesus as his God, "Even so, come..."
The last sentence is understandable. Consider, however, the order that you are able to study in all creation. Does it make sense for this to just "happen" without design? Or was entropy somehow outdone by chance? The very order of creation cries out for an Orderer, if you will, an original Originator.
Rightly understood, science is the study of the Creator. This does not prove that the Bible is the revelation of the Creator. But it would seem that to accept the idea that all this order developed out of disorder and chaos requires far more faith than to accept that there is a Maker to established the order and the laws that maintain it, from its origin and on as it entropies.

This idea is understandably comfotable for human mind - to think that there is some powerful, yet humanoid figure , that takes care of everything, and everything have sense and order.

You still can try find a lot of analogies in a terms of sciense and religion, but it's kinda fictional.

More fictional and less scientific than the idea that everything is just some blind luck that fell into order in total contradiction to entropy? Can you find one shred if science to back up your assertion?

@zaebars - yes that few thousands of years makes all the difference if a certain subset of humanity is the end product desired by that Creator. This is what the Bible reveals and is the type of thing that Science has no way to know.

I didn't talk about luck, you could look at theory of multiverse, for example
Do you realy think that thousands years of humanity existing on surface of this planet make any diference in a universe scale?

It's a fair question, @zaebars. Yes, I do. But that is because it's part of the design of the Creator. Otherwise, no, it wouldn't make any sense at all. If there is no intelligent purpose, then trying to make sense of any of it is, to at least some degree, senseless.
The multiverse is an interesting idea. It's still blind luck though, isn't it? I mean, everything just spontaneously happens?

"Nihilism rejects the distinction between acts that are morally permitted, morally forbidden, and morally required. Nihilism tells us not that we can’t know which moral judgements are right, but that they are all wrong. More exactly, it claims they are all based on false, groundless presuppositions. Nihilism says that the whole idea of “morally permissible” is untenable nonsense. As such, it can hardly be accused of holding that “everything is morally permissible.” That too, is untenable nonsense. Moreover, nihilism denies that there is really any such thing as intrinsic moral value. . . . Nihilism denies that there is anything at all that is good in itself or, for that matter, bad in itself" - Alex Rosenberg (Professor of Philosophy - Duke University)

After reading your paper on the absurdity of life without God, I soon realized that I had to become a nihilist. To act otherwise would inevitably reduce into an inconsistency. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of an atheistic worldview. Yet, nihilism is unlivable. Letter From An Atheist To Dr. William Lane Craig

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

I believe in a bigger power of God. We are far away from knowing it all through science. It may be many years if ever, we can prove everything. Christ taught us how to live and learn to love one another. Remember: When US was a Christian based nation how much better off we were. Now its too much hate. We must learn to live by the Bible again! Always seek the TRUTH!

I might be coming from a completely different direction than most, but I do find this argument interesting and maybe you wish to touch on it.

When figuring out whether or not we just evolved or were created, I think, well if we really are only dust then why would killing be wrong. It's just taking dust and making more dust. Why bother with any sort of law or truth?

And to those who do no not believe in a God or a hell or any sort of absolute truth I often think about the following.

There are two options.

I could be wrong and there is no God and there is no afterlife and everything ends after our last breath

Or I could be right and there is a heaven and hell and consequences for our actions.

I guess I feel that if I am wrong then I will have lived a life that helped a lot of people and made a long term impact on the world. But if I am right it has eternal consequences.

I no longer gamble but I like the odds where if I am wrong I lose nothing and if I am right I gain everything.

I'm sure I will receive some comments that attempt to refute this, but I think it is an interesting talking point and am happy to respectfully discuss it.

I like this way of thinking. Sometimes I have phrased it this way:

If a believer is wrong, she will never know.
If a believer is right, she will reap a great eternal reward.
If an unbeliever is right, he will never know.
If an unbeliever is wrong, he will reap a great eternal disaster.

Now, assign whatever probabilities you like to the proposition of who is right or wrong...

Then compute the expected value of taking one of these positions.
For the believer it is always positive.
For the unbeliever it is always negative.

Absolutely. And when I share my faith it is not in a way to be morally superior, but because I do care where people may end up eternally. It would actually be more unloving to never ever share my faith. But it is not my job to try to force someone to believe, but plant a seed of thought.

I enjoy learning about all faiths and respect many different thoughts and beliefs, but feel certain religions receive a terrible reputation based on the actions of a select few.

My favourite question is - Would you still believe in god if there was no reward of going to heaven at the end of it?

Its funny, but not a single believer has yet to give me astraight answer

Would you still believe in god if there was no reward of going to heaven at the end of it?

I believe in God and I'm probably going to Hell. ;)

Here we shall agree =)

Absolutely. Believe and serve. Heaven is not the end game. God is supreme and deserves worship and is under no obligation to me at all. I am doubly indebted to him because he created me and I slapped him in the face by disobeying his law. So, I deserve death. The least I can do is serve God.

I also believe whomever God calls comes to Him - so if He called me with no benefit to me whatsoever then I would be compelled to obey.

Sorry, but i highly doubt that. You can say it now but facts are there to remaine.

Look at what Christ said - salvation through me - implying that salvation is the gift for believe
Look at the fanatic islamsits - they go for the job with the belief that they will go to heaven
Look at fabatic Jews - they believe because they, and only they are the chose once, and no one else will be saved at the end of the game

So whatever you say maybe true jsut for you, and maybe you are the one in a million, but for most believers (according to each instituion's religous manuscripts or books) - salvation in one way or another is the present for belief, and the main reason

No doubt there is a period along the growth path of a disciple where the motivation is carrot and stick. Just like what it takes to train a child to form good habits.
However, these days I would do anything for my mother out of love, even though there is not much more that she can do for me.
That is the way it is with God. Abba. Papa. Daddy.

Would you post on steemit.com... if there were no reward system in place?

But seriously faith in God is far more than just a hope for some future reward... that is perhaps only relavent when belief is very immature...

I am not a believer but I think you made a critical point. I think some people have a sense of spitituality, and some do not. Those who are spiritual are conditioned to find faith in a religion, and to them the world is unimaginable in a frame of reference without that religion. So I agree that the failthful are not failthful for a reward, but because they cant imagine any other way. For the non-spritual, the concept of living with a religion is equally un-imaginable. The problem comes when doctorine (either religious or not) tries to force these groups to pretend to do something in which they do not (cannot) believe.
Many modern religious leaders of many faiths preach tolerance of other faiths and the non-faithful, many on the secular side are happy to live with those of the religious persuasion. This only fails when intolerance prevails.

Preachers preach and teach from the begging of times.
If you are hearing that they preach about tolerance, then you are doing great. I hear the opposite, and there is no need to give me an example of how the Pope forgave Israel for the fact that they crucified Jesus... What?!
Where is tolerance? Thats pure disregard and disrespect to anothe religion.

For the fact of living along side religious persuaisin, no probs, read my comment to the topic starte. But thats not the point i was trying to make.

Respect =)

"the Pope forgave Israel for the fact that they crucified Jesus... What?!"

Are you implying Jesus wouldn't want them to be forgiven?

Yes i would post, as I would be writing a blog. I posted on facebook, VK, OK, and so on and so forth. In fact people wrote books and were burned for doing so by the church or other religious authorities.
So i dont think it has something to do with immaturity.

Having studied christianity, buddism, islam, judaism, bahaism and other religions i cm to lots of conclusions.
One of them is that believers belief becasue of the final reward (salvation will only be achieved if you believe in me).

Faith in God is not a bad thing, its a great thing in fact. But its absolutyl misinerpeted and corrupted.

One should I go to church whne Jesus said that buildings or any other physical entities have nothing to do with faith. The church (along with other institution of faith) are the most corrupt places i ever seen. They are hypocritical from the buttom to the top.

Why should I believe in 1 God, why not 20? If god or gods exists, who to choose?
Well each one (of the over 1000 known religions and over 100 000 thousnad known enteties and gods) states to believe in him only as he is the right one and he will save you (back to the reward)

what is heaven but a bribe, and what is hell but a threat?

Heaven is not a bribe, it's home. Hell is not just a threat. It's a prison, worst possible kind of prison. But it was not meant to be our prison. Place where you don't want to end but place where you can end without Jesus.

If that is all you understand them to be then that is all they will ever be to you... but if you engage with the concepts a little more deeply then there is a lot more there than meets the first glance.

Justice and grace. To my belief God allowed man to make his own decisions instead of forcing some sort of automotron love. Love cannot be forced or it is not love. Sin needed to be punished and according to the bible Hell is here because of a choice humans made not to follow the rules God gave. Heaven is not bribe, but a reconciliation with God through his sacrifice of his son who I believe was perfect and took on the sin of all. By believing that God did this and accepting it, he allows our many past sins and future sins to be washed away. That's not to say we can live as we wish and then at the end turn in some sort of get into heaven card.

I understand why it does not make sense to many people and there are many hypocritiacal christians who say one thing and do another. But to the best of my knowledge, I believe in my heart that heaven and hell are much deeper topics than merely a reward and a threat.

Straight answer. Yes.

I would.

The reward of heaven is not the only reason one believes.

But also without an afterlife what is the purpose of life? Are we more than dust that has evolved? If not, then why is there outrage about injustice when someone enslaves or hurts someone else? Would that not be dust engaging with more dust in a meaningless swirl of life?

I struggle to find what the meaning of life would be without believing there is something after this life.

Even without heaven as a reward for accepting Christ, one would still lead a life that served others even though it may not matter since without a heaven you would just die forever.

What pursuits would matter in life? Money? Status? Power?

I guess I would also pose the question back to you. Would you believe in God if you knew there was a heaven and would one day be held accountable for everything you have done in your life if you decided not to follow Christ?

You make a good point. I definitely appreciated your question @serejandmyself and respect your insight as well.

Thnaks, i think we all need to agree on disagreeing as it all going in circles. Thanks for the open answer

Yes absolutely. It is not my duty to change your beliefs, nor do I feel that anyone should impose upon another's beliefs. I think sharing your beliefs if a user asks or you feel you can respectfully contribute something to the conversation is what should be done.

Trying to "convert" someone gives an air of superiority. But if you share what you personally believe in a kind way, you will then let the person come to their own conclusion whether or not that turns out to be agreeing with out or not.

It is valuable to engage with many different beliefs and philosophies to shape your own and make you question why you believe what you believe.

Science is about the How - Religion is about the Why

To ask why presupposes purpose without first demonstrating the existence of a supreme being to assign purpose.

Science is about the How and Why, Religion is about making up theories without evidence

I will say that I have a feeling you have already made up your mind @gavvet and I'm not quite sure what you are seeking here. Let me explain why.

I did answer your question with two blog posts which you even cite at the beginning of this post. Yet you did not vote on them, comment on them, or give any response. In fact that seems to be the case with my replies to you. So do you consider a person of science as being someone that replies to only those that already agree with them? I am starting to think that may be the case. I make this from observing which posts you respond to and like I said not responding when I take the time to give you detailed blog posts on the scientific method.

In fact you continue talking as though I didn't say anything.


This does protect you from having to answer difficult questions. Yet to anyone that sees and realize this is what you are doing it essentially nullifies the legitimacy of the purpose stated in this blog.

You make statements about science that may sound good. "Science is about how... religion is about why" Which is completely false, in both the case of science and religion. It does have a nice powerful ring to it, yet that doesn't make it true. They both seek how, why, when, and if possible where.

If this is your approach then that makes your blog nothing more than dogma and seeking reinforcement. This is not how science works, and if you don't understand that then you likely are not a person in a position to discuss the topic you are.

So, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and give you the chance to refute these statements.

HERE ARE MY TWO BLOG POSTS:
First - In that one I hadn't even delved into science. I spoke about Christ and the Sermon on the Mount and such. I did a good enough job of being civil about the topic that one person even commented that he couldn't read it because I was writing about religion. He had no clue I was an atheist / deist. He simply read part and thought I was a Christian or derivation of that as well. YOU DID NOT RESPOND.
Second where I do answer your question and thoroughly go over the scientific method. I answer your question. YOU DID NOT RESPOND.

Yet here you are continuing the same discussion, and talking about science. It doesn't work that way. Religion may work that way, but I seriously doubt you truly practice science if this is your approach.

That is okay though... there are a lot of people that throw the word SCIENCE now like it is a religion these days like they are experts. Yet when it comes to science itself, they completely fail at the most basic requirements. The scientific method. That is literally all you need to know and follow to be a scientist. It's simple. Finding the answers with it is not simple, but the method itself is.

It's a pity we live in such disparate time zones, for me it's 4 am right now... I generally managed to see responses only after the fact and voting is closed... there is a lot to respond too and my head is too fuzzy to do anything justice right now. Will definitely give airtime to your responses in any suitable future pieces

That is completely acceptable to me. Thank you for responding here. I am fine if you don't respond for days even, those other blogs are two weeks old. I DO understand time zones though.

Thank you for responding.

It is quite interesting to read the thoughts and beliefs of others. Sometimes people will go through things in life that challenge those said beliefs. Some grow a stronger sense that they need to follow Jesus in order to stay strong while enduring whatever life throws at them. Some lose their faith after feeling and thinking that Jesus (or God) let bad things happen. But what really pisses me off to no end, is those who claim to be religious. They go to church, do their daily prayers and what not, but then they turn their noses up to anyone not in (their group). They act like they are all high and mighty and better than the rest of the world. If they are truly Christians, or whatever religion, why would God approve of their attitude towards others, instead of trying to help others learn?

Good post. Depends where you've been. There are many good churches with great pastors and very friendly people. Maybe you were not just "lucky" to find such a group. Dont's surrender, keep searching. But in the end when you truly find Jesus, you'll not be that critical when people are not just that friendly.

I love Jesus with all my heart, not because someone teach me about him, I love him because I have a personal and unique encounter with him, the last thing that I want it in my life is God, no way that i will love him or even to be close to something called God, but my encounter with him was real, more real than the air. Christ saves from not only sin but all forms of disorder. this is so true, my life was fix, my healt was fix, my all was fix.

May I ask how you know who Jesus is?

I fell off my chair laughing , you made my day

I believe Jesus lived at the time, but when it comes to the Bible, I do not believe it.
Religions are made so is that they try to distinguish different species from one another and have a belief in life. How one can feel confidence in their faith.

I have nothing against people who believe in different things, but I do not believe in it yourself.
The nearest I believe can be paid is Buddhism. Couse budha was a person who do good things for people.

So when talking about God, etc. in different religions, it is the same thing we all believe in. Just different views on what you think.

what really means "to follow Jesus"? He did not make it clear, just said something like "believe me".

"Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey all I have commanded you [including this recursive command]." Matthew 28:19-20

Follow Him = Be in His presence and learn to be like Him.

I am the way... follow thou me... pretty clear to me.

I don't think everybody shoud be equal and think and value the same things. I value the differences and originality, as long as nobody hurts no one. The rights of one man ends when begins the rights of the others.

It wasn't a command to be a robot. It was a command to love God first, then others in the same way.

But I think it is interesting for anyone to have their own way to live their life. I don't think it is good to everybody follow the same path

The only limit to the freedom of a person is the freedom of the other.

@gavvet дай пару апвоутов на мои посты пожалуйста

Trump and Hillary both say stuff like that. In fact pretty much every "leader" says that. So it is not crystal clear. What does FOLLOW mean? It means different things to different people. I am the way... okay so, I guess I need to push you aside like a door... no I don't think that is what it meant but it is an example of how someone could interpret it differently. So it is not clear. It is vague and it may be intentionally that way to make you THINK.

A scientific basis for Jesus Christ? People are going crazy now!

What scientific evidence would satisfy you?

Following the scientific method would be a starter. It can't get past the hypothesis stage in that. If you're not following the scientific method then it is not really science, it is some other purpose for which people hijack the word.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Jesus seems like a pretty "chill" guy .

Your post is physically inaccurate. Stars do not build complex atoms by decreasing entropy. They in fact do the opposite; by going from hydrogen to atoms with a higher atomic number, less energy is needed for the bonds. This energy is released in the form of light, which increases the entropy of the system.
Life manages to keep entropy more or less the same by using the energy released from the sun. It does not create order from chaos, it merely reshuffles the energy. But even life has its boundaries, hence people get cancer and other deceases.

The core of the sun becomes more ordered...heavier more complex elements... the light leaves the star... energy is lost... therefore entropy decrease in the sun. This is lost to the rest of the solar system and beyond...

Life is only possible because the earth is not a closed system.... turn off the sun and all life eventually disintegrates.

The constant energy input in the form of light from the sun has been the hand rolling the ball uphill from an evolutionary perspective.

You're right, I thought you meant the entropy of the system was decreasing. I don't think your analogy between entropy in the physical sense and disorder in the everyday sense of the word is much more than that, though.

It is likely our sun will go nova (bigger ones go super nova) which releases far more energy than it does now. (at least that is the hypothesis and observation of novas at this time it does have a theory that fits at the moment)

Science is actually about How, Why, When, and Where. Time, Distance, Reason, etc. All of those things factor in. You can't build a model with science of how things work without also knowing why, when, and where.

Yet that does not disprove God, Jesus, etc.

It also does not prove them. That does not mean it WILL NOT.

You can certainly engage in what you called "thought experiments" and reach the HYPOTHESIS stage... after that it is purely speculation, and "what ifs". It is not proof of anything.

If you have data, and an experiment that improves it you document it thoroughly so other people can do the same experiment. If someone challenges a part of it, you do your best to answer that challenge with more experiments to debunk their challenge if possible.

I do truly view science and religion both as trying to answer the same questions. Personally I feel like religion takes a short cut because it only requires people to believe and have faith. In fact questioning that faith is usually strongly discouraged. That is one of the large areas that the two approaches diverge. Science doesn't care about faith, it cares about belief up to the hypothesis stage as that is basically what the hypothesis is, and then it goes on to try and experiment to prove that belief.

I do not mean to be inflammatory and start a fight but this would appear to be nothing more than a series of non-sequiturs wrapped in pseudo-science. I mean to say, no compelling reasons were ever given to link the observations of thermodynamics to a spiritual system as is implied. The only thing offered are stretches in language and a deep desire to see a connection whether there is one or not.

While reading this post I was reminded about how the bible contains so much in it that anyone can cherry pick passages to support anything.

If interested I'm willing to elaborate in a respectful debate on the subject.

While reading this post I was reminded about how the bible contains so much in it that anyone can cherry pick passages to support anything.

This, a million times. The sad truth (for spirituality) is that the Bible is nothing more than an ancient version of Harry Potter and faith is just a crutch for the unhappy or unfulfilled.
Personally, I can't help but note that religion declines as education flourishes, which should be the last word in this far too common debate.

It is true that cherry picking does occur. But that means nothing. Proper use of the Bible is understanding one passage in context with all the others. When you do that, you achieve a solid defensible case. Even so, there is a temptation to leave out passages that steer you away from a preferred interpretation.

The Bible, however, is eyewitness testimony of God's interactions with men. It is presented as fact, not fiction, by the authors most of whom died rather than recant what they had written. JK Rowling has not made such an assertion about Harry Potter nor has she died defending it as Truth.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

My point is that the Bible is a work of fiction, not fact. I appreciate that some good can come out of some of its stories, but you're kidding yourself if you believe the origin is anything other than creative writing mixed with ignorance of the reality behind extraordinary events. By that I mean floods, comets and so on.

But admit it, you are assuming it is a work of fiction despite it's being presented by earnest and credible men as eyewitness accounts of real events that they were willing to die rather than recant.

It's your right to assume its fiction. It's also your loss. :)

Jesus is 5th dimensional. Nice guy.

Awesome post, thanks!

I shared about my faith today as well as I explore the issues of Comfort and Contentment.

For better, or worse, it's not so sciencey.

Dear @gavvet and the rest. I have written a rebuttal about this post here. You are invited for a productive dialogue

https://steemit.com/philosophy/@kyriacos/rebuttal-of-gavvet-s-entropy-vs-christ-a-scientific-basis-for-jesus-christ

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

It amazes me how intelligent people can treat a lie that is any religion to be science.

It also makes me utterly sad.

Religion was the most effective invention to enslave people. Only very little is as powerful as religion.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Why do you think that Jesus is about religion after all. If religion took Jesus and built something around Him doesn't make Him a religion. Like when your wife (if you have any) is a model in some modeling agency it doesn't mean you will ignore her just because you despise modeling agencies. With Jesus, you don't need to take religion if you don't want, you can take just Him and His teaching.

I personally reject his endorsement of slavery and attitude towards women. I also reject the idea that him sacrificing his own life absolves billions who've committed horrendous acts. And that part about "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life", is pretty retarded; a moral system that rewards gullible idiots over sceptical rational people. I think I'll pass on Jesus and use my own brain instead.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

The sad thing is you haven't taken the time to understand what it's all about. You are reacting emotionally to a false strawman of your own that you have erected. The only part you got right is your quote from John 3:16 but it is clear you do not understand it.

And by the way, people who pass on Jesus will get exactly what they asked for. That's the Plan.

So after being raised as a christian, attending church and a christian school until the age of 16, being constantly educated by Christians, I don't understand what it's all about?

It's you who doesn't understand what it's all about. Here are some simple, cold hard facts:

Jesus didn't say that there was anything wrong with slavery. He told slaves to submit to their masters. Slavery persisted for over 1800 years in christian countries. People who "followed Jesus" were slavers. It took until 1833 for people to go beyond the teachings of Jesus and abolish slavery on the basis of the suffering being caused.

Vicarious redemption is an archaic, primitive moral system. The idea that one person's suffering atones for another person's sins, and in any way improves the situation, is obviously dumb. It's also obvious where the idea comes from in ancient, uneducated cultures.

"whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" is self explanatory. If something else was meant, then it would have been written differently. But let me guess, we're supposed to interpret it in a way other than it is literally written, to extract the true, nuanced meaning from this piece of ancient text written by a primitive human being with little to no education at a time where being able to count to 20 would qualify you as an intellectual.

It's 2016, we can do so much better than the crude teachings of Jesus.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Show me where Jesus endorsed slavery.
He, and his apostles, did have instructions for those who found themselves in that status - which is very similar to their instructions to those of us who find themselves subject to a modern government. Those instructions were to accept your situation (including the status of women in those days) and focus on eternal issues. Jesus did not come the first time to change all the institutions of humanity (that is coming soon). He had a specific mission to accomplish and he did not want His disciples getting involved in politics and revolution. He had bigger fish to fry.

Vicarious redemption is far older than "archaic". It is older than "primordial". It has been God's plan before time began.

It is the one thing that puts man into the right relationship of dependence on God. Without that we tend to elevate ourselves to a place where we eventually rebel against God. He's had quite enough of that with Satan and his angels.

So this world is a test range to see who will make that simple attitude adjustment. The test is so simple it doesn't need any updating to 2016.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

I stand by the term "endorse". It's a straight-forward, honest interpretation of what was written. A genuinely enlightened, intelligent and morally good person in a position of influence would have explained how people should be treated equally and not possessed as property. Instead, Jesus clearly supports slavery.

which is very similar to their instructions to those of us who find themselves subject to a modern government. Those instructions were to accept your situation (including the status of women in those days) and focus on eternal issues
This is a casual attempt to dismiss and belittle an enormous problem. Being subject to a modern government doesn't involve being raped, beaten, imprisoned etc. This was the reality for many slaves. This isn't a trivial issue that can be dismissed. A few simple words from Jesus could have dramatically improved the situation and prevented years of brutal suffering.

*It is the one thing that puts man into the right relationship of dependence on God. Without that we tend to elevate ourselves to a place where we eventually rebel against God. He's had quite enough of that with Satan and his angels.

So this world is a test range to see who will make that simple attitude adjustment. The test is so simple it doesn't need any updating to 2016.*

Do you realise how bizarre this belief is? It's like something from Lord of the Rings. Angels, Demons, Satan, The Lord Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit, Yahweh...
Yahweh needed to sacrifice his son to himself so he could forgive humans who have been told he exists and unquestioningly believed it, in order to give them eternal life - while those that are sceptical of his existence, regardless of whether they are morally good or not, are doomed to eternal punishment. Why not just forgive people without having your son tortured? Why not just forgive everyone, instead of favouring believers over unconvinced sceptics? Also, what's the significance of Jesus being tortured? Many people have been tortured, more brutally so and for much longer periods of time. Yet no one claims that their torture has a bearing on the misdemeanours of the entire of humanity.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Actually The Lord of the Rings is an allegory based on Biblical themes, not the other way around.

Nobody else is sinless so nobody else could offer themselves as a substitute since they would already be doomed by their own sins. Jesus had to first live a sinless life before he was qualified to be the Lamb of God.

The reason he doesn't just forgive everybody is because there needs to be repentance and admission of the need to be saved. Quite frankly, he wants to eliminate people with attitudes like yours. So the things that the world finds foolish are the very things that separate the sheep from the goats. Until you appreciate the kind of love that would do that for people who don't deserve it, you do not yet have the attitude that will allow God to ignore what you (and I) have done.

Given these facts, the only fatal sin is rejecting God's help out of arrogance or unbelief or desire to be in charge of your own life.

As for slaves, I have told you already. It wasn't on Jesus' agenda at the time and that's His choice to make.

Now come on, really, given all the things you have done wrong in your life do you really presume to lecture the Lord Jesus on what His priorities should have been? And are you holding out on Him because He doesn't meet your standards?

Sadly, that is the state of Man and why God needs to have a simple filter to separate that attitude from the attitude God intends to save as members of His family for all eternity.

"Seek the Lord while He may be found."

This is so well written:

Entropy loss is the sacrifice or repentance required to bring about the higher state. The entire process is symbolized by the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The bread representing the body or life of Christ the wine the shed blood death and mission of Christ. The bread is broken chewed swallowed and digested. Each a further degree of dissolution. Until it is carried about the body by circulatory system to become the building blocks of new cells. As Christ disseminates himself and is internalized he becomes part of us.

That's why going to church, attending masses and receiving the Holy Eucharist is Most Important.

I just wish I could have learned this 'why' of importance back as a child, not as an adult.

Nice post @gavvet. Certainly a wise way to describe our existence within the confines of religion. Assume you knew (or maybe you already do) that organized religion was a product of humankind's need for structure and guidance. What do you think would replace the idea of God/Christ? When you speak of dissemination and fortification, what is the significance of this realization? Is it to reinforce the power of Christ's words/wisdom or is it beautiful prose utilizing an already instilled belief structure to disguise a deeper truth? Perhaps more importantly, why do you think Christ was created?

Christ was not created. He was with the Father in the beginning. All things were made through Him and without Him nothing that was made has been made. John 1:1-5

What is it with threads going dead here? The lack of a reply option on many discussions suggests moderation, or is this some shortcoming in Steem?

Beautiful post! Another great way to fight entropy is good music. Needless to say that good music is present throughout all religion traditions.

AMEN @gavvet

What bothers me a lot when these topics come up is how firmly people plant their feet on either side of the issue. @gavvet I enjoyed your post. I love science and am a believer, I have never seen why one needs to be right over the other. Thank you for the share

so you must believe in the non overlapping magisteria to believe in both science and religion

I read a little into it before answering as I have not heard that term used before. I will have to read more to respond to that fully. One line caught my eye though.... "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth". Without the details, I had a moment of truth spiritually. It was defining and very real even if I couldn't quantify it to another person. I am also in love with science and finding answers, in other words, truth. Now, I am not heavily involved on either side and their organizations. I wonder if this has left me free to form my own opinions, or maybe it just kept me from entering an area of social pressure where your pressured to pledge allegiance to one side over the other (how it seems to me). I will read that further though as I just love information :)

Cognitive dissonance is the problem most people run into when trying to reconcile the glaring contradictions between the claims made by religion and the observations presented to us through science. Most usually solve the problem by sticking to the science as truth and then explaining away the contradictory divine claims as metaphors.

Redefining god as an abstract placeholder that could just as easily be the non-sentient universe is the path I see most take. They say they believe in the god of the bible but have warped it their own desires to reconcile the cognitive dissonance.

As someone who was never pressured into believing in religion I find it quite fascinating the lengths people will go to in order to hold on to beliefs they know to be false yet identify with so heavily.

There is no scientific basis. It cannot make it past the hypothesis stage. Yet there is also no scientific basis that he did not exist. This is one of those things that unless you have a time machine you will not be able to prove using the scientific method.

A book written and edited by man many times is not science. Even if it wasn't edited by man and was the original, that still has nothing to do with science.

This doesn't mean there is no Jesus, it just means you cannot use science to prove whether there was or was not. Unless you DO happen to have a time machine... that'd be pretty nifty, and scary Time goggles so you couldn't change the past would be preferable. :)

I think I responded to you on this two weeks ago:
In this post about Jesus and the Scientific Method

Take solace though


Science cannot disprove Jesus Christ either.

EDIT: And darn it... wrong monitor again... I prefer poems with this account. I should have posted that on @dwinblood account. :)

Replying to myself from the correct account. I am not against religion. I am not against Jesus Christ. I've been friends with many minsters and priests and had a lot of great conversations.

You are correct that I believe religion and science are trying to answer the same questions.

Religion relies partially on faith and belief.

Science does not. It relies upon observation, hypothesis, tests with controls, documentation, observation, and replication, and it is always subject to be challenged. The scientific method was designed to eliminate bias. That doesn't mean there are not a lot of so called "scientists" today that give science a bad name. There are. They don't actually follow the scientific method so really are not scientists. If you follow the scientific method you right now where you sit would be a scientist. If you had a dozen PhDs saying you had science degrees and you did not use the scientific method then you are no scientist. It's pretty simple.

So could people not using the scientific method tell you science could prove Christ and tell you they are using science? Sure, anyone can do that. If it doesn't use the scientific method it is not science, it is simply someone hijacking the words for their own purpose.

I am not saying you are doing that @gavvet You write some truly compelling pieces, but I do think you are falling into the trap of viewing the term science as some of the charlatans may have convinced you is science.

You can research what the scientific method is. You don't (and shouldn't) take my word for it.

If you can find a way to prove Jesus Christ with the scientific method I would certainly be interested in that as a big part of the scientific method is that the experiment can be replicated.

Yes, and there are just as many "so-called Christians" as "so-called Scientists". So lets set those folks aside as irrelevant.

Science has recused itself from knowing anything about the subject. Fine. That kind of ends the debate right there, doesn't it?

The problem is that some scientists go beyond their domain and claim that if you can't apply the scientific method you can't know anything. That's where they cross the line.

I like to compare the supernovas that scientists believe to have happened to the miracles that Christians believe to have happened. In neither case can we test the proposition all we can do is study past records collected by others for us.

Now we are only quibbling about how many records, how they were documented, and how old they are.
These are differences in degree, not in kind.

If you can't apply the scientific method it is not science.

Science is not a belief system. It is simply a tool. If the tool can't be used then what good is it to pretend that it can be used?

Science can't make stuff out of thin air. Sometimes people use the word science and try to do exactly that, but that isn't science... it's just someone hijacking the label to try to get you to accept their appeal to authority.

There is no appeal to authority built into the scientific method.

  1. Make observations
  2. Ask Questions
  3. Form a hypothesis
  4. Create a test/experiment
  5. Draw conclusions from test
  6. If not satisfied go back to step 3
  7. Challenge step 5 from previous experiments if new information presents itself

Without a time machine all we can do is get to step 3 when it comes to Jesus Christ or ANY other religion Hindu, Buddhism, Taoism (immortals), Egyptians, Native Americans, etc. It's not possible. For that matter why is Christ right and real, while you perceive these other religions as pagan or fairy tales?

Do you want me to make something up? Will that make you happier? I could perhaps found a new religion because that is often how that happens, someone imagines what makes sense to them to explain something, speculates, tells someone else or writes a book, gee that guy is intelligent, collects followers, is called a cult, gets even more followers, now it's a religion.

By the way I do agree with you that there are "so-called christians" and "so-called scientists". I've replied elsewhere explaining the so-called scientists.

As to Christians. I believe that describes MOST modern day Christians I've met. They definitely don't seem to be following the way of Christ. In fact once he was gone they seemed to go right back to doing things the way the Pharisees were doing before Christ told them to stop.

Christ freed people, and he was gone they went back to being slaves.

I admire the Sermon on the Mount and a lot of the moral ideas in what Christ is attributed with saying I really do. Yet, honestly I believe I live closer to those words than 90% of the Christians I've met. I do not consider myself a Christian. Just a man.

Yes. Sad but true. But God has preserved a remnant for Himself.

“I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In the same way, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. -- Romans 11:4-5

Yes, I am absolutely agree with your concept as long as it relates the spiritual. Thanks for sharing such point of view.

"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places ... "Many centuries have passed since then, as our Lord said these words, and none of these centuries had passed without war, disease, famine and earthquakes. The mighty empire turned to dust, the disease carried off half of humanity, thousands of people died in the cataclysm of nature - from floods, fires and hurricanes. This happened again and again in the course of these centuries, but never made Christ's return to Earth.

Yes, but remember, all that is written must happen first and also God is giving time before horrible "End Time" events so whoever could be saved will be saved before it will happen.

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. “Where is the promise of His coming?” they will ask. “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.”… 2 Peter 3:3

First: I had to reply here because ALL of the other cases you responded to me you replied as the last entry in the nesting limit so it would let me reply there.

You keep saying "there is no evidence". That is false. There is ton's of evidence. There is no absolute "proof". But court cases are decided all the time without "proof". The archeological records that exist exceed all other sources of historical information in quality and quantity. So, we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that real, credible eyewitnesses observed Jesus do and say amazing things. Now you, the jury, need to decide whether they are credible or not.

I haven't said anything about evidence. I've simply stated that science cannot be used to prove or disprove it. Writings in a book, and eye witness accounts are not sufficient data for the scientific method. You have to be able to replicate, experiment, etc for science to prove anything. It is a tool, it is not a belief system. In this case everything that is needed to use science to PROVE (or disprove) christ, God, etc is not there. It cannot be used to answer this question with what we have.

Yet, I haven't said a word about evidence that I recall. You may have decided to THINK of that word as you read something I wrote, but I haven't said that.

I have said Credible Witness does not matter to Science. Credible is subjective. Who gets to decide that person is Credible? Oh, yes right another human. Are not humans fallible, even the credible witness. Yet let's say what the witness said was 100% true. Science still couldn't use that because it couldn't test it, experiment with the data, and replicate it. So if there was a witness and it is true, the scientific method can't really rely on that. All that credible witness really does when it comes to a scientist is to EXCITE them into trying to find a way to prove it/disprove it. If they follow the scientific method it removes bias, yet even many "so-called" scientists (especially lately as its the only way they can get their state funding) do not practice it right all the time. They approach it with bias to produce the results they expect to receive to keep their funding going.

Yes. I agree that this has nothing to do with Science and am not trying to say there is a scientific way to know anything about the Unobservable. Science must recuse itself from having an opinion on the matter. However, humans are not constrained to only knowing what science can discover.

I agree with you completely here. In fact this was essentially ALL I was saying from the beginning, but I did get derailed by people firing off other things at me, that I didn't say.

Initially I did not attack religions at all in my posts. Simply explained why Science really couldn't be used here.

Thanks @gavvet for a thought-provoking and original post!

"Everything is energy, and it's all in alignment."--@quinneaker

God is energy, heaven/hell are energy...it's all vibration. Chaos/entropy/hell are of low vibrations, and heaven/divinity are of high vibrations. The human mind is unable to perceive all energy at once (the computer mainframe just can't handle it), but that's what gives rise to experience--the contrast of this and not that.

"if we cherish this attitude we will be locked in this state forever" <----beautifully stated, although it's the same with any experience we choose to embody, be that heaven OR hell. If it's all we see, if we attach to it, if we cling to it, then we exclude all other possibilities.

Love the parallel you've drawn between repentence = moving past sin as electing a more ordered state.

For some, it gets confusing to call that choice "Jesus", because our culture has attached significant and dense meaning to that name. As the philosopher Alan Watts points out, Jesus did not say that he was "THE" son of God (as in the King James version of the Bible), but rather that he was "A" son of God (as in the Greek). He was "A" Christ, not "The" Christ--christ meaning enlightened being, just like a buddha. (Similarly, there's a difference between THE Buddha with a capital B--the being once called Siddhartha Gautama--and a buddha with a lowercase b, of which there have been countless recognized incarnations.) People get super attached to this exclusivity, and even use it as justification and excuses for why they themselves are unable to embrace their own divinity.

Jesus did not represent that he alone was the exclusive path to God, but that every man, woman, and child had access to The Way/Light/Truth within their own divine being, but Christianity has to misinterpret that to sustain its own existence. Religion has a great time saying that Jesus is the one and only path, because then people NEED religion to find God. If you can find God yourself, then religion is superfluous and the church has no power.

If you use the structure of religion to connect with your own godliness, cool. If you use the framework of science to connect to it, cool. They're both control structures with particular rules, so if you're into having someone else tell you how to do it, or if you're into relying on something outside of yourself, cool.

It doesn't really matter how you get to the point, but every single being can tell when they are in the expansive realm of possibility or not--you can feel it. We've come up with words (which are inherently limiting) so we can communicate these experiences amongst ourselves, but stuffing God into the limits of language necessarily negates the entire expansive truth of what that concept actually is.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Actually, check out the actual words of Jesus to Nichodemus in John 3:16-19.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

All 25 major English translations agree on the word "only". http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm

This also makes it very clear that Jesus is claiming to be the only way - "Whoever does not believe stand's condemned already"

And, Jesus said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me."

In Matthew 16:17 it is pretty explicit:

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.

So I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but you ought to check your sources. :o)

As a practicing Christian my entire life I've been in many conversations/debates with friends of equal or superior intellect regarding Christianity vs. Evolution and always am able to get their brain matter overclocked with the simple question of "do you really believe that you totally evolved crawling out of a mud puddle and eventually becoming a self aware organism? I gave you more credit than that. Over the years I've also had a comment or two from some friends regarding the going to church, mass, service, etc.... thing. My response is "at the very least it teaches a way of life and offers a moral compass. Don't you agree everyone could use that?" I get the same answer everytime, "yes". The reality is the greatest generation providing all of us with a moral compass is dying of old age everyday. A new generation is rearing called the "me" generation. We can only hope and pray they find at least a moral compass, at most religion. God bless everyone and have a great week!

It is interesting to read :))

Religion is a hypothesis. It's only an speculation. It does not answer "why". To assume that you have dealt with "why" means you have formed a conclusion. To form a conclusion you would have had to examine the facts and test them. Christ as a historical figure probably existed and was probably a real human being. Our ignorant human mind has glorified this name towards fantasy and madness.

Why do you say "probably" to his existence and "improbably" to his deity?
It is the same set of historical eyewitness accounts that attest to both.

As to deity... lots of people have been considered deity's and super beings since the time of christ. Why not believe those eyewitness accounts? Eyewitness accounts are meaningless when it comes to science. That doesn't mean they have no value, it just means you can only apply the scientific method to something you can collect data on, perform tests, and replicate. Not likely to happen without a time machine. Thus, why I keep saying science is not going to be able to prove or disprove anything. Science is a tool, not a belief system. In this case it is a tool that has insufficient data to use.

I guess I'm not being clear. Science has nothing to do with it and I'm not trying to shoehorn this into pseudoscience. Eyewitness accounts are valid ways to gain knowledge outside of science. You have to decide whether they are credible, true, but if they are credible then you can know things science can never tell you.

Of course, science can help you assess credibility by determining the authenticity, age, and origin of certain documents. Once you have determined that a document is what it claims to be, then it is up to human judgement to assess the credibility of what is written there.

I never said you couldn't know things that science doesn't tell you. NOT ONCE.

I simply stated that science cannot PROVE or DISPROVE the existence of Jesus, or God.

At least with the data available. It may be possible this will always be true.

I did not say Jesus does not exist, or God. Not a single time.

@gavvet is talking about science and religion and specifically science proving Jesus.

It does not, and cannot unless it has data, can experiment, and can replicate. Replicating in some form of simulation will move it into a THEORY instead of just being a hypothesis.

Oh, right! I agree with that.
(I was talking about a European swallow, not an African swallow, that's my point...)

:o)

So much one could read and write. I feel the need to write something but not sure where to start. Love these deep explorations of understand of life.

Namaste and right on brother!

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

We are all hypocrites, that's what "god" loves about us.

아멘

when man has no faith on god then he will become alone.........

atheism is not for those who want, but for those who can

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

atheism mostly catches those who are still blind and proud or those who were hurt by religious people

I think the opposite, that dogma is something that you follow blindly without any proof

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Who says there is no proof. But when you wish to see proof all you need to do is to walk for it. And I mean serious walk. You cannot expect proof just by thinking about it. With this lazy position, you will spend your life without knowing God. All you will have will be your opinion that God doesn't exist because you haven't found Him because you haven't even tried.

Religious debates are the most difficult ones, I do believe there is some primal force in the universe, call it God or what you want, but I don't have any faith in any religion, as for some of you on the heaven- hell thing, if God is perfect, as he should be, wouldn't it be over kill on his part for someone to have to spend eternity in hell over a few mistakes made in say an 80 year lifetime? And how does God pick who goes to hell, by a percentage? Like ok, he only weighs in at 49% so down he goes, missing heaven by just one percent, you might say only those who accept Jesus go to heaven, but isn't this kind of unfair to the ones who've never heard of him?. Also I always wonder at conservative Jesus lovers (I don't believe in his divinity one of the commandments says there is only one God, still I think he taught some great stuff) who don't see that Jesus taught completely revolutionary ideas against the conservatives of his time.
I am not trying to cause a debate I'm just writing what I think, and I am not trying to change anyone's ideas, as I have respect for all, because in the end nobody knows what the truth is.

Actually, you need a 4.0 spiritual GPA to get into heaven on your own. No one can do that. So God made a simple alternative: accept his gift of a free pass into heaven. You just need to admit that you don't have a 4.0 and can't hope to earn a 4.0.

Under these conditions, the only sin that counts is the one of rejecting Jesus' outstretched hand.

That decision is what is worthy of eternity in Hell.

OK, I'm not debating this, but just so you know I am not a native English speaker so you got me with GPA, I don't know what that means.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Sorry. Grade Point Average. Straight "A's" means a perfect 4.0 score in most American schools. No one gets into heaven with a "C" average or even a 3.99 score.

+1...very good

  ·  8 years ago Reveal Comment

You will not last long here.