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.

[ZAKtheGeek]

That's well-structured and mostly well-reasoning. Good stuff, man.

I find the comparison between a divine person and abiogenesis flawed though. You have to consider the conditions the two situations rely on. Concerning abiogenesis, given an environment with lots of the right materials, there's a small chance lifely stuff will form and survive (we think). Many instances of such environments have existed, exist, and will exist throughout the universe (we figure). All these instances of the necessary conditions are what make it reasonable to say that even the very improbable could have happened at some point.

Concerning divinity? Well, first of all, there has to be a god. At least one. This god also has to be aware of earth, capable of interfering with the functions of the universe, and must have the motive and will to incarnate itself here. To me it seems that all these necessary godly properties only get one chance at being at the desired state. I mean, I guess you could say there's a god whose abilities and/or disposition vary over time, or even one that continuously fades in and out of existence, but given that we're talking about Yahweh here, that's probably not the case.

Basically, there's almost always another planet for life to form on, but if there's no god, then you never even get a second shot.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

That's well-structured and mostly well-reasoning. Good stuff, man.

Thankee.

I find the comparison between a divine person and abiogenesis flawed though. You have to consider the conditions the two situations rely on. Concerning abiogenesis, given an environment with lots of the right materials, there's a small chance lifely stuff will form and survive (we think). Many instances of such environments have existed, exist, and will exist throughout the universe (we figure). All these instances of the necessary conditions are what make it reasonable to say that even the very improbable could have happened at some point.

'We think' and 'We figure' is basically the point I was trying to make. We don't know. But yes, if it IS possible, its reasonable to say. Only problem is that nobody has proven its possible yet...

Concerning divinity? Well, first of all, there has to be a god. At least one. This god also has to be aware of earth, capable of interfering with the functions of the universe, and must have the motive and will to incarnate itself here. To me it seems that all these necessary godly properties only get one chance at being at the desired state. I mean, I guess you could say there's a god whose abilities and/or disposition vary over time, or even one that continuously fades in and out of existence, but given that we're talking about Yahweh here, that's probably not the case.

Basically, there's almost always another planet for life to form on, but if there's no god, then you never even get a second shot.

I actually pretty much agree with this part. Christianity is a lot more situational than abiogenesis, and a lot more premises need to be true. In sheer numerical probabilities, abiogenesis does have numbers on its side, but in all honesty the probabilities of either being totally accurate is extremely low. My thought process does paint a better picture for intelligent design vs abiogenesis. If we consider intelligent design and abiogenesis to have similar probabilities, the odds of Christianity being accurate becomes significantly less probable as it is really only a single worldview of the many that make up intelligent design.

So yeah, a very low probability... but then again, what isn't?

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

'Jesus did those things'. Writings indicate that he did

Writings also indicate that Alexander the Great had a tryst with the queen of the Amazons. Oh, wait, that didn't happen and the Amazons are almost certainly mythical.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

'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.

Only pathetically poor evidence. Yes, I'm sure that religious documents are highly viable texts for the determination of divinity... except not.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

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.

Here, I've got some odds that make it even less likely: What are the odds of someone going around, performing an assload of miracles, and even rising from the dead... and it not being recorded outside of Christian religious texts? Hmm... perhaps they are... zero?

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Well, if we take the Abiogenesis theory, there is NO scientific evidence to prove that abiogenesis is even possible, much less that it happened.

All you need for abiogenesis is for a hydrocarbon molecule to be generated that causes catalysis in other molecules in order to create new hydrocarbon molecules that are the same as the first. Ooh, sounds so impossible!

Besides, "no one has proved it yet" isn't a valid critique for a theory in the natural sciences. That, at one time, applied to a wealth of now-widely-accepted theories, like heliocentricity, Darwinian evolution, and the idea of genetics.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

However, that can also be done in favor of intelligent design as well.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it's just waving your hand, saying "God did it" and spouting bullshit to try to disprove science in order to support your religion. It should never be accepted. You cannot show evidence for it, and you never will be without a deific being coming down and taking credit.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

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.

Yes I can. As I said before, abiogenesis does not require very much and there is no evidence outside of religious texts that Jesus is deific or had powers.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

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.

Well actually, human population wasn't very high if you go back two thousand or so years. Indeed, it was only a few thousand for most of humankind's history. And when you take into account that Christian God could only incarnate into a jewish man... well, there's not that many jewish men throughout history up until that point.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

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.

No. No they aren't. The Bible is about as well founded as, say, 9/11 conspiracy theories. On the other hand, careful peer review happens in the natural sciences, and it is very hard to sneak bullshit through the system - and when people do, it tends to become quickly found out.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

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.

So you're saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just a probable as Jesus? Well, okay, you got me there, although I do resent the implication that metaphysical naturalism is just as reasonable as creationism. I presume that was purely accidental?

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Okay, I guess I have to change my statement to, "A woman gives birth to an incarnation of the omnipotent creator of all things? I'm pretty sure Jesus is metaphorical."

No, I mean this seriously, that's still a flawed association from a literary standpoint. Metaphor =/= Mythology.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Serenity

Blah blah, yada yada, irrelevant point, inaccurate statement, blatant lie...

Originally Posted by Me

but its foolish to think that anyone is capable of completely disproving any one worldview.

Well, most of us mere mortals can't claim to be 100% certain of anything, seemingly unlike yourself.

Outside of the fact that most of what you said was totally wrong, I think you painted yourself out to be one of those intolerant, know-it-all types who thinks he has a better grasp on the universe than the rest of us.

Namely, you were acting like what I had just said was a fool.

I don't claim to be able to prove or disprove anything... I believe what I believe, and I point out how nobody knows anything for certain. If you were wise, you'd do the same.

Oh, and before you go talking about abiogenesis, you might want to actually know what you're talking about. Life is a smidgen more complicated than repeating hydrocarbons, and that catalyst you referred to is an enzyme - something which only comes from other living things. As far as we know it, life requires life. Its not to say it can't be discovered otherwise, but then again, I can say the same thing for God.

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Originally Posted by Serenity

Writings also indicate that Alexander the Great had a tryst with the queen of the Amazons. Oh, wait, that didn't happen and the Amazons are almost certainly mythical.

Almost mythical? That right there invalidates your point, because if "almost," then there's a possibility they were real, had a queen, and Alexander the Great slept with her.

Yes, I'm sure that religious documents are highly viable texts for the determination of divinity... except not.

That's not even refuting a point, that's just saying "Nu-uh," and don't say I took this piece out of context because the next part has nothing to do with your statement, it's a whole new point.

Here, I've got some odds that make it even less likely: What are the odds of someone going around, performing an assload of miracles, and even rising from the dead... and it not being recorded outside of Christian religious texts? Hmm... perhaps they are... zero?

Like, what do you mean by other documents? And no, they're not zero, that's an arrogant statement to make because it presumes you know the whole of human history, including what every human being capable of writing was writing about around the time of Jesus's miracles.

Well actually, human population wasn't very high if you go back two thousand or so years. Indeed, it was only a few thousand for most of humankind's history. And when you take into account that Christian God could only incarnate into a jewish man... well, there's not that many jewish men throughout history up until that point.

So? There's no point here, it's just a remark about population patterns.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Roy_D_Mylote

Like, what do you mean by other documents? And no, they're not zero, that's an arrogant statement to make because it presumes you know the whole of human history, including what every human being capable of writing was writing about around the time of Jesus's miracles.

There are several historians with written text on important worldly events in the general timeframe of Jesus' life, only two of which actually document anything close to Jesus.

One mentioned "Christ" once, which is kind of iffy, as in the day, "Christ" was a generic word for "Annointed One" -- at the time, it didn't really have any specific holy connection to it.

The second one, I think, was proven to be fake awhile ago.

I'll try to grab some sources for these soonish... I could be isremembering some of this, so don't hold me to this just yet.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Roy_D_Mylote

So? There's no point here, it's just a remark about population patterns.

Well in the context of strictly probabilities he might have a point. I'll concede population measurements probably aren't too accurate if you go back far enough, but it's probably safe to say we know enough to assert that there couldn't have been the absolutely gargantuan human populations we have today in the distant past.

So strictly within the context of probabilities, there's a many many many fold higher chance of many divine men (or women?) appearing in the past one or two hundred years than ever in human history, and with each passing day the probability of one (or many) increases.

We can bat around the strength of that point or its implications (speculation like exactly whom, among us now, are divine, since there ought to be a couple hundred by now), but I see more than 'no' point there.

Also: phew, fallacy city on most counts.

[Krylo]

Could you maybe cut down on the ass-hattery, Serenity?

You have a few good points but they're buried under mounds of--ironically enough, all things considered--holier than thou douchebaggery. No one is going to bother noticing or seriously considering your points so long as you're being a dick about it. Same as when religious zealots piss us off with their, "I'm right, and that's it times infinity," bullshit. You're acting the same way but coming from MY camp, which I find, honestly, offensive.

All in all, just a suggestion, though. I mean, you haven't gone so far as to be actually flaming or whatever. Just, yanno, not being conducive to being taken seriously in the context of discussion, religious or otherwise.