Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

I never said it was impossible. Nothing is impossible. Well... in actuality, anyway. I suppose there can be impossibilities when dealing with theoretical concepts.

That's why "improbable" requires further qualification, and why showing something not to be impossible proves next to nothing. Just to roll with the example, we don't know for sure that stars are giant gas balls lightyears away from this planet, it's just that all our observations indicate that to be the case. It's entirely possible that we've simply been mistaken.

Improbable, yes. But not impossible.

See what I mean? Remote enough possibilities aren't even worth considering. They tend toward impossibility, and that's quite good enough. I'm pretty sure this is an axiom of practical rational thought, too.

While this isn't intended to be an argument, but our discussion has inspired me to write my thoughts on probabilities and possibilities. This isn't meant to be an argument supporting one view over the other, but more or less a simple thought on the futility of theological debate. A fun mind-game more or less.

A basic Jesus=Deity argument goes something like this: Only a divine person could have done those things. Jesus did those things. Therefore, Jesus was divine.

A basic NT=Crap argument goes something like this: Jesus was a normal man. Normal men cannot have done those things. Therefore, Jesus could not have done those things.

You essentially used 'normal men cannot have done those things' to counter the first argument, when in fact it serves to support the first argument more than anything else. Nobody who believes that Jesus performed miracles believes that Jesus was normal, so its a moot point.

The point of contention between the two arguments is actually the second premise of the first argument and the first premise of the second argument.

'Jesus did those things'. Writings indicate that he did, but its difficult to prove scientifically. As a premise this is weakened by the fact that there are no living eye-witnesses, so its a premise formed basically from hearsay.

'Jesus was a normal man'. This premise is based off of probability more than evidence. After all, any empirical evidence tends to suggest that Jesus wasn't normal at all. However, what are the odds of someone being divine? We can't even be sure that its possible for someone to be divine, but then we can't be sure its impossible either.

This gives the Jesus=Deity argument about the same amount of weight as the Abiogenesis theory. What do you mean by that, do you ask?

Well, if we take the Abiogenesis theory, there is NO scientific evidence to prove that abiogenesis is even possible, much less that it happened. Really, the only evidence to support it is the fact that we exist, and life goes on. However, that can also be done in favor of intelligent design as well. 'Evidence' such as the formation of amino acids and the like has been stated, but rationally any scientist knows that an amino acid is not life at all, but simply a molecule, and that abiogenesis itself has to be shown for this theory to become anything more.

Statisticians will argue the point that if abiogenesis IS in fact possible, it would have happened at some point. After potentially infinite time and infinite space, even a ridiculously small probability would eventually become probable. Research, then, isn't so much focused towards trying to find when or how it happened, but rather whether or not its actually possible. Scientists currently don't care exactly 'how' it happened, but want 'potential ways' how. Once the possibility is there, abiogenesis is complete. After all, if somethings impossible, it doesn't matter how much time it has.

Now while you may think that Jesus=Deity (or Jesus did those things) is highly improbable, and you may even believe it is impossible, you can't logically say that it is 100% certain that its impossible any more than I can say I'm 100% certain abiogenesis can not occur.

So the debate, then, comes down to whether or not its actually possible for Jesus to have been God. If it is impossible, the whole Christianity thing becomes a moot point. If it IS possible, then we must argue probabilities. Indeed, the probability (even if its possible) of Jesus having been God is extremely low... but then if it IS possible, over the thousands of years and billions of people that have lived, a man being divine isn't quite as improbable as the original thought. Then if its possible that one man could have been divine, why couldn't it have been Jesus?


Of course, this whole thing is little more than a logic game as fails to prove or provide evidence one way or the other, but it does go to show that many of the criticisms towards Christianity have are at about the same level as criticisms of an athiest worldview.

Probability are difficult to argue in a theological debate, because, none of us are even sure of whats possible, much less how probable it is. In fact, its pretty much a waste of time to criticize one world-view over the other anyway as in the long run each ends up being just as 'probable' as the other. Everyone should know what they believe and why they believe, and be able to stand up for their beliefs... but its foolish to think that anyone is capable of completely disproving any one worldview. Given that, we have a good argument why nobody should force their beliefs on another person, and I'm sure we can all agree that nearly EVERY worldview has been guilty of attempting that at some point or another.