(August 18, 2009 at 3:59 pm)Tiberius Wrote: If someone lives as a peasant without mention, and then suddenly 40 years after his death is claimed to have possessed supernatural powers, it just looks like those powers were made up on the spot.

I've already addressed that extremely pessimistic and antipathic view. I'm not going to repeat myself or give your post a serious treatment, because it adds nothing to the discussion.

I'm just saying how it seems to me personally. No need to give it a response. You find it pessimistic, I find it logical.

(August 18, 2009 at 3:51 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 18, 2009 at 3:33 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Post #128: It's not me making assumptions; I am only pointing out that you are yourself making assumptions, such as the assumption that you are conscious, the assumption that reality exists (in spite of quantum physicists disagreeing!), the assumption that other minds exists, etc.

I said quantum physicists disagreeing. Not me (I am not a quantum physicist), and not Bohmists, but specifically Bohrists/Copenhagists.

Yes you did but you specifically used it in such a way as to imply (more than imply IMO) that those who assume reality is the default state are wrong.

Are you now retracting that? Do you accept that quantum physics in no way demonstrates reality to not exist?

Kyu

(August 18, 2009 at 5:10 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Yes you did but you specifically used it in such a way as to imply (more than imply IMO) that those who assume reality is the default state are wrong.

No, they are not wrong. I stated from the beginning in that discussion that I am a realist.

(August 18, 2009 at 5:10 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Are you now retracting that? Do you accept that quantum physics in no way demonstrates reality to not exist?

What quantum mechanics demonstrates depends on the interpretation, arealist/acausalist (Copenhagen orthodoxy) or realist/causalist (Bohm).

(August 18, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 18, 2009 at 5:10 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Yes you did but you specifically used it in such a way as to imply (more than imply IMO) that those who assume reality is the default state are wrong.

No, they are not wrong. I stated from the beginning in that discussion that I am a realist.

A realist would assume that reality exists ... you live in a metaphysical fantasy world.

(August 18, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 18, 2009 at 5:10 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Are you now retracting that? Do you accept that quantum physics in no way demonstrates reality to not exist?

What quantum mechanics demonstrates depends on the interpretation, arealist/acausalist (Copenhagen orthodoxy) or realist/causalist (Bohm).

No, it doesn't because quantum mechanics describes physical reality, how matter is composed of molecules & atoms and how they are composed of yet smaller particles still.

Kyu

(August 18, 2009 at 3:51 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 18, 2009 at 3:45 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: BTW, you say you don't discount the existence of other historical religious figures...please tell me, do you discount Hercules or Achilles?

I don't know if those Greeks who believed in those myths believed in them as historical (human) persons. It seems unlikely to me.

If they did, I would have no reason to deny that such human persons existed. That doesn't mean I accept them as gods or accept their religious claims.

There are other religions that I do know look up to historical human persons, who are either both divine and human, or only human but with a special contact to the divine, according to them. I have no reason to deny their historical existence.

For instance, according to many, it's very likely that Odin was a historical person, a warrior/shaman, who came to be worshipped as a god.

So anyone who claims to have a historical religious figure, then you must accept them as truth? Come on, this is shitty standards of evidence. And your example of Odin only proves my point. Jesus, if he existed, was no more than a man now believed to be god. There's NO evidence for his godlike characteristics.

And also, calling a statement pessimistic doesn't mean Adrian's point was any less valid. His statement was very much valid, as it what I've been talking about all along.

(August 18, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: So anyone who claims to have a historical religious figure, then you must accept them as truth?

No. That is emphatically not what I said.
I said very specifically that the historical existence of a person who has some important place in a religion, doesn't need to be disputed, to dispute the truth of the position of that person or religion. As I said, just because I don't dispute the historical existence of persons important to other religions, that doesn't mean I accept them as gods or accept their religious claims, nor does it necessitate it.

(August 18, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: And also, calling a statement pessimistic doesn't mean Adrian's point was any less valid. His statement was very much valid, as it what I've been talking about all along.

It was not valid. It was taking the most pessimistic viewpoint as to the Gospel dating and proclaiming victory. The first versions of the first Gospel was written down possibly as close, to the contrary, as within 15 years of Jesus death, meaning in the time of his contemporaries. Of course, that is only possible so long as one doesn't presuppose that the prediction of the fall of the Jerusalem was not just either a coincidental (and somewhat vague) prediction and therefore naturally possible, from the naturalistic standpoint, OR a priori exclude the Christian viewpoint of the possibility of such a prediction. Both options are perfectly possible, rather than taking it to mean that the first Gospel was written down later than all other facts indicate. In this case, it depends on what is mandated by philosophical presuppositions brought in ready-form to the material.

(August 18, 2009 at 5:35 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: No. That is emphatically not what I said.
I said very specifically that the historical existence of a person who has some important place in a religion, doesn't need to be disputed, to dispute the truth of the position of that person or religion. As I said, just because I don't dispute the historical existence of persons important to other religions, that doesn't mean I accept them as gods or accept their religious claims, nor does it necessitate it.

Of course you can dispute the historical existence of ANYTHING if the evidence warrants it. Your distinction is silly, and only goes to prove my point anyway since you agree that historical evidence isn't enough to prove divinity. So where's your proof for Jesus's divinity?

(August 18, 2009 at 5:35 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: It was not valid. It was taking the most pessimistic viewpoint as to the Gospel dating and proclaiming victory. The first versions of the first Gospel was written down possibly as close, to the contrary, as within 15 years of Jesus death, meaning in the time of his contemporaries. Of course, that is only possible so long as one doesn't presuppose that the prediction of the fall of the Jerusalem was not just either a coincidental (and somewhat vague) prediction and therefore naturally possible, from the naturalistic standpoint, OR a priori exclude the Christian viewpoint of the possibility of such a prediction. Both options are perfectly possible, rather than taking it to mean that the first Gospel was written down later than all other facts indicate. In this case, it depends on what is mandated by philosophical presuppositions brought in ready-form to the material.

Bullshit. The earliest gospel was written approximately 40 years after the claimed death and resurrection, that is commonly accepted as historical fact. Anything else you put forth you need to provide evidence. What "first versions" and where's your proof?

(August 18, 2009 at 6:27 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Of course you can dispute the historical existence of ANYTHING if the evidence warrants it. Your distinction is silly, and only goes to prove my point anyway since you agree that historical evidence isn't enough to prove divinity. So where's your proof for Jesus's divinity?

I never said I had proof of Jesus divinity. What I have been dealing with is his historicity, not his divinity.

(August 18, 2009 at 6:27 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Bullshit. The earliest gospel was written approximately 40 years after the claimed death and resurrection, that is commonly accepted as historical fact. Anything else you put forth you need to provide evidence. What "first versions" and where's your proof?

No, a late date is accepted only on the grounds of the prediction of the fall of the Jerusalem, which to some mean that it must have been written after the fall of Jerusalem (e.g. past 70 A.D.). That is a philosophical presupposition I don't share. The prediction is entirely possible, even in naturalistic terms as a coincidence or an anticipation on reasonable grounds, or for a Christian, simply a prophesy. It depends on ones philosophical presuppositions what date is possible to entertain. For me, the philosophical reasons to postpone the date beyond the fall of Jerusalem are simply not there, and the historical indications that it is much earlier are almost universally recognised (which is one of the reasons earlier documents like Q are proposed).

---

(August 18, 2009 at 5:20 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: A realist would assume that reality exists ... you live in a metaphysical fantasy world.

I do assume it to exist, but I am able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it, to a great length, and to the length of defending it from errorneous criticism, while I am only really trying to understand how and why I know it is wrong, rather than immediately dismissing it as unworthy of examination.

(August 18, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: What quantum mechanics demonstrates depends on the interpretation, arealist/acausalist (Copenhagen orthodoxy) or realist/causalist (Bohm).

(August 18, 2009 at 5:20 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: No, it doesn't

You are in error here. It comes down to it, entirely.

(August 18, 2009 at 5:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: because quantum mechanics describes physical reality, how matter is composed of molecules & atoms and how they are composed of yet smaller particles still.

You are presenting the classical Einsteinian view. You clearly haven't observed the Kantianist direction physics has taken since Bohr.

Quantum mechanics is not in itself physicalism or realism, only the largely rejected Bohmian interpretation is. Quantum mechanics in itself, is a theory of observation, and specifically in the standard interpretation, namely the Copenhagen interpretation, a highly subjectivist and aphysicalist one, which maintains that the quantum realm we know is fundamentally unreal and aphysical because as soon as we have information about it, that information has changed according to our observational acts, in Kantian style with the inacessibility of the thing-in-it-itself; the Copenhagen interpretation largely makes this a fact.

Why do you think such great minds as Einstein, Karl Popper, Bohm, etc, worked hardly against the Copenhagen interpretation? Because of the radical character of it's findings, revising the entire classical view of the world.

There is a book I can recommend which tries to fight the bitter fight of realism, entitled Quantum Theory and the Flight From Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics. But you should note that this is not representative of a standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, which involves fundamental quantum arealism, aphysicalism, unknowability outside of the unrealistic observationally modified information and even then, quantum nonlocality, quantum indeterminacy, quantum acausality, uncertainty, and other things in stark contradiction to classical, Einsteinian metaphysics, and in Einstein's words, a "spooky" picture of the universe.

(August 18, 2009 at 4:09 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 18, 2009 at 3:59 pm)Tiberius Wrote: If someone lives as a peasant without mention, and then suddenly 40 years after his death is claimed to have possessed supernatural powers, it just looks like those powers were made up on the spot.

I've already addressed that extremely pessimistic and antipathic view. I'm not going to repeat myself or give your post a serious treatment, because it adds nothing to the discussion.

Your not going to give his post serious treatment because it is a direct challenge to your belief about Jesus. He's skeptical, so what's your response? To attack his question as "extremely pessimistic and antipathic"
SO why all the overeaction and drama from such an incredibly intelligent person? (I mean, I can't keep up with what your writing on quantum physics-you are amazing-truly Jon Paul I mean this most sincerely)
I'm wondering if the reason could be is that you know at the core of your argument is your desire to overpower people your belief in magic? That maybe that is all that is behind the curtain of your intellectualism, a desire to control and be in power. That maybe that is all your faith is?
Or not.
And if not, what strikes me is that if you are wanting to sharpen your skills, such emotionally charged harsh responses are getting in the way of your ability to make a convincing case for your beliefs.
Peace In
Omjag86

---

Quote: It was not valid. It was taking the most pessimistic viewpoint as to the Gospel dating and proclaiming victory. The first versions of the first Gospel was written down possibly as close, to the contrary, as within 15 years of Jesus death, meaning in the time of his contemporaries. Of course, that is only possible so long as one doesn't presuppose that the prediction of the fall of the Jerusalem was not just either a coincidental (and somewhat vague) prediction and therefore naturally possible, from the naturalistic standpoint, OR a priori exclude the Christian viewpoint of the possibility of such a prediction. Both options are perfectly possible, rather than taking it to mean that the first Gospel was written down later than all other facts indicate. In this case, it depends on what is mandated by philosophical presuppositions brought in ready-form to the material.

This is what I was talking about yesterday. There are no proven facts here, and you know it, so you throw up a curveball of "possibilities" and "Naturally possible" "Perfectly Possible" until you arrive at "the first Gospel was written down later than all other facts indicate" I'm so dizzy I can barely clarify that you have presented no facts just arguments of possibilities that you have researched and tracked down to support your belief about Jesus being magic. Are you Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly? You could be, you would blow those guys off the set!