Being embarrassed about Jesus?

[JohnClay]

Ok...so do you believe that this non-obvious intelligent force could manipulate the laws of physics in ways that would leave people without explanation?

No only in ways where the skeptics have a plausible explanation. It is a bit like how people could use statistics so that the truth of breaking ENIGMA was undetectable:

What makes you think this? Even the resurrection is limited to a few thousand at best. Where do you get millions? Wait...the Exodus...yeah, that's a whole different animal.

So then why do you insist on pure "naturalism"? What is your basis for that insistence, if you don't even know if there is a real "law of physics"?

I think I'm probably in a simulation and the appearance of naturalism makes it more immersive and makes any apparent connection with the intelligent force more special. Also I've been hospitalised for mental illness multiple times and this belief makes me less likely to have delusions about the supernatural.

 

[Fervent]

No only in ways where the skeptics have a plausible explanation. It is a bit like how people could use statistics so that the truth was undetectable:

Why would you believe that, when there is a whole host of completely unexplained phenomenon among our current set of observations? How does skeptical imagination limit such a being?

I think I'm probably in a simulation and the appearance of naturalism makes it more immersive and makes any apparent connection with the intelligent force more special.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "naturalism" other than that there exists a degree of regularity and predictability. It's a meaningless catch-all.

 

[JohnClay]

I'm sure they did find them persuasive, but we can't really know whether or not the arguments are reasonable until we examine what they are. It's just not an argument to present their opinions as persuasive in and of themselves but a textbook fallacy.

So you're saying they found the arguments reasonable but in fact it could be the case that the arguments weren't actually reasonable? The bishop has sold "well over a million copies" so many of his readers probably thought his arguments were reasonable too...
I guess you're saying that you can only confirm that those arguments are in fact reasonable if you also agree that they are reasonable (which would require me to tell you what they are)

 

[JohnClay]

Why would you believe that, when there is a whole host of completely unexplained phenomenon among our current set of observations?

What do you mean? UFOs?

How does skeptical imagination limit such a being?

Because I am a fan of the quote "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"

Again, I don't know what you mean by "naturalism" other than that there exists a degree of regularity and predictability. It's a meaningless catch-all.

It involves a simulation that follows the predictable rules of physics, etc.

 

[Fervent]

What do you mean? UFOs?

No, at least not exclusively perhaps. There's a plethora of phenomenon with no current explanation. I suppose the most critical would be consciousness, but I wasn't specifically thinking of particulars. Both common and historical events exist that escape explanation, beyond highly speculative theories.

Because I am a fan of the quote "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"

Yes, you've mentioned that. But an agnostic cartoon comedy writer is a questionable source for philosophic/theological truth. It is a good line, though.

It involves a simulation that follows the predictable rules of physics, etc.

The "rules" of physics are hardly predictable, and it's rather presumptuous to believe that our current mechanical understanding of reality is reflective of anything more than our ability to improve our conjecture when our theories start to fail. If all you mean is that there is a generally ordered reality that allows us to reasonably make probabilistic predictions then you're not really saying much, and you're exceeding the epistemic warrant of the reasoning that produces our models of "physics" when you take them to be absolute.

 

[Fervent]

So you're saying they found the arguments reasonable but in fact it could be the case that the arguments weren't actually reasonable? The bishop has sold "well over a million copies" so many of his readers probably thought his arguments were reasonable too...
I guess you're saying that you can only confirm that those arguments are in fact reasonable if you also agree that they are reasonable (which would require me to tell you what they are)

So you've transitioned from argument to authority to argumentum ad populem. Keep going, maybe you can hit every species of ad hominem.

 

[JohnClay]

So you've transitioned from argument to authority to argumentum ad populem. Keep going, maybe you can hit every species of ad hominem.

I'm not saying I've disproven the physical resurrection, just that it isn't as watertight as you think it is. If MLK and the bishop think that unreasonable arguments are reasonable there must be another reason. Perhaps they believe it for fallacious reasons. But on the other hand I think a lot of religious people also believe things for fallacious reasons. What do they have to gain from disbelief in the resurrection? They would lose their salvation. Maybe they think they're smart for siding with the liberal skeptics? I think the only reason I keep bringing up MLK and the bishop is that I find it surprising. I mean they're Christians and they apparently disbelieve one of the key requirements of being a saved Christian. And the bishop told the world about it which could cause a backlash. Or maybe it made him more popular as well?

 

[Fervent]

I'm not saying I've disproven the physical resurrection, just that it isn't as watertight as you think it is. If MLK and the bishop think that unreasonable arguments are reasonable there must be another reason. Perhaps they believe it for fallacious reasons. But on the other hand I think a lot of religious people also believe things for fallacious reasons. What do they have to gain from disbelief in the resurrection? They would lose their salvation. Maybe they think they're smart for siding with the liberal skeptics? I think the only reason I keep bringing up MLK and the bishop is that I find it surprising. I mean they're Christians and they apparently disbelieve one of the key requirements of being a saved Christian. And the bishop told the world about it which could cause a backlash. Or maybe it made him more popular as well?

You've presented nothing by way of argumentation, other than employing a fallacy. Why they believed what they believed isn't really material to our discussion, simply the manner in which you're appropriating their opinions. As for their self-identifying as Christians while denying a major tenet of Christianity, there's nothing particularly interesting about that as there are all manner of aberant beliefs out there. Whatever there reasons were, they don't speak to the issue without their arguments being presented. A lot of people believe a lot of things for fallacious reasons, but your clinging to them as an argument is a fallacious argument. Their opinion is only relevant if they had access to something beyond what is available to everybody else, and then it is only whatever it is that was available to them that is of interest. Their opinion says nothing about the strength of arguments that convinced them.

And as I said earlier, I don't think the case for the resurrection is "watertight", simply that with what evidence is available it is the best explanation. And when I say that, I mean that it is the most parsimonius so long as we don't load the deck before considering the evidence such that it is.

 

[JohnClay]

No, at least not exclusively perhaps. There's a plethora of phenomenon with no current explanation. I suppose the most critical would be consciousness,

One possibility is an observer substance - though I don't see any evidence of related phenomena like telepathy. Also my simulation belief can be used to explain absolutely anything that is miraculous.

but I wasn't specifically thinking of particulars. Both common and historical events exist that escape explanation, beyond highly speculative theories.

It sounds like "God of the gaps".

Yes, you've mentioned that. But an agnostic cartoon comedy writer is a questionable source for philosophic/theological truth. It is a good line, though.

I believe that God has a sense of humour. BTW another thing that happened in my hospital stay in 2019 was this:

I realised that there were 42 holes in Connect 4 and that 42 was related to the ultimate question so I thought I'd count the pieces and there were exactly 42 but not 21 of each like there is supposed to be. There were 19 and 23 which are special numbers - prime numbers. The question that goes with "42" was said to be

Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"What do you get if you multiply six by nine?"
The author was an atheist and I suspect that is partly why he didn't involve the number 7. It should be "what's 6 times 7". I think 7 is related to God and 6 is related to man. So I think it is related to life being about the interaction with God and man. And again only I felt this as an interaction with an intelligent force. Everyone else would see it as a coincidence. But like I said, Connect 4 sets always have 21 pieces of each colour. Though eventually I tracked down the set (a non-original brand) and it had 23 of each colour but then they must have lost 4 red pieces.

The "rules" of physics are hardly predictable, and it's rather presumptuous to believe that our current mechanical understanding of reality is reflective of anything more than our ability to improve our conjecture when our theories start to fail. If all you mean is that there is a generally ordered reality that allows us to reasonably make probabilistic predictions then you're not really saying much, and you're exceeding the epistemic warrant of the reasoning that produces our models of "physics" when you take them to be absolute.

Like I said it is just my opinion. I'm not saying I've proven it as Truth.

 

[Fervent]

One possibility is an observer substance - though I don't see any evidence of related phenomena like telepathy. Also my simulation belief can be used to explain absolutely anything that is miraculous.

Ok, though that's neither here nor there.

It sounds like "God of the gaps".

If I were arguing "there are mysteries, therefore God" it certainly would be. But it is equally naturalism of the gaps to assume that such mysteries will give way to naturalistic explanation. In both cases, it involves making a sampling error that begs the question.

I believe that God has a sense of humour. BTW another thing that happened in my hospital stay in 2019 was this:

I realised that there were 42 holes in Connect 4 and that 42 was related to the ultimate question so I thought I'd count the pieces and there were exactly 42 but not 21 of each like there is supposed to be. There were 19 and 23 which are special numbers - prime numbers. The question that goes with "42" was said to be

Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ok

"What do you get if you multiply six by nine?"
The author was an atheist and I suspect that is partly why he didn't involve the number 7. It should be "what's 6 times 7". I think 7 is related to God and 6 is related to man. So I think it is related to life being about the interaction with God and man. And again only I felt this as an interaction with an intelligent force. Everyone else would see it as a coincidence. But like I said, Connect 4 sets always have 21 pieces of each colour. Though eventually I tracked down the set (a non-original brand) and it had 23 of each colour but then they must have lost 4 red pieces.

Ok

Like I said it is just my opinion. I'm not saying I've proven it as Truth.

You sure seemed insistent upon it earlier. So what is this opinion built on? How do you justify it?

 

[JohnClay]

You've presented nothing by way of argumentation, other than employing a fallacy.

I'm just sharing my thoughts (my surprise that they reject a key pillar of Christianity), not trying to win a perfect (fallacy-free) debate to prove that there was no resurrection.

And as I said earlier, I don't think the case for the resurrection is "watertight", simply that with what evidence is available it is the best explanation.

Then what about why Christians can become atheists in general? Is it just because they were ignorant of the best arguments for Christianity? Then there are atheists that become Christians.

 

[Fervent]

I'm just sharing my thoughts (my surprise that they reject a key pillar of Christianity), not trying to win a perfect (fallacy-free) debate to prove that there was no resurrection.

Well, I don't really share your surprise. There are all manners of people who self-identify as Christians while rejecting key elements.

Then what about why Christians can become atheists in general? Is it just because they were ignorant of the best arguments for Christianity? Then there are atheists that become Christians.

Generally, it's not a matter of arguments. People rarely make those kinds of transitions based on examining the arguments and weighing them against each other, arguments tend to come after the fact. More often the issues are social and cultural, where intellectual issues come into play is acting like a lawyer justifying a conclusion rather than critically evaluating the arguments from any sort of objective criteria or consistent hermeneutic.

 

[JohnClay]

You sure seemed insistent upon it earlier. So what is this opinion built on? How do you justify it?

When I was in the mental ward I believed I was in a simulation. I believed that the flat earth or Mormonism could be true because they are physically possible in a simulation. But those two events - the upside-down Bible and the Connect 4 set showed me that it seems evidence of God seemed to happen in non-obvious ways - in ways that couldn't be proven to other people. That basically sums up the Futurama God quote. So the world gives the impression that it is just naturalistic. I also had experiences related to Maundy Thursday.

 

[Fervent]

When I was in the mental ward I believed I was in a simulation. I believed that the flat earth or Mormonism could be true because they are physically possible in a simulation. But those two events - the upside-down Bible and the Connect 4 set showed me that it seems evidence of God seemed to happen in non-obvious ways - in ways that couldn't be proven to other people. That basically sums up the Futurama God quote. So the world gives the impression that it is just naturalistic. I also had experiences related to Maundy Thursday.

Personal experience is essential to faith, but it seems to me you're overgeneralizing your experiences. But let's explore this non-obvious reveal dynamic you are talking about, how do you believe it worked on the side of your non-obvious force? How did it manipulate the world so precisely as to deliver you the message you would understand but others wouldn't?

 

[JohnClay]

Well, I don't really share your surprise. There are all manners of people who self-identify as Christians while rejecting key elements.

Generally, it's not a matter of arguments. People rarely make those kinds of transitions based on examining the arguments and weighing them against each other, arguments tend to come after the fact. More often the issues are social and cultural, where intellectual issues come into play is acting like a lawyer justifying a conclusion rather than critically evaluating the arguments from any sort of objective criteria or consistent hermeneutic.

BTW I think I originally became an atheist due to logical reasoning. It was based on ideas like Answer's in Genesis's:

Why Does Creation Matter?

Is creation vital to the authority of Scripture and the gospel, or are we just wasting our time and being divisive—or worse, turning people away from Christ?

answersingenesis.org

“Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.”

Basically about all-or-nothing thinking. In particular it was about the Green River Formation and an ex-creationist showed me information about it and writings involving the issues. There were millions of varves and seemed to show a history of different lake sizes with different kinds of creatures throughout its history.
In high school I said to "God" that I wanted to know the truth, no matter how depressing it was. I guess that meant I was open to atheism at the time. Then I got very strong tingling in my body - one of the only times that has ever happened.

 

[JohnClay]

Personal experience is essential to faith, but it seems to me you're overgeneralizing your experiences. But let's explore this non-obvious reveal dynamic you are talking about, how do you believe it worked on the side of your non-obvious force? How did it manipulate the world so precisely as to deliver you the message you would understand but others wouldn't?

Like I said I think I'm probably in a simulation. It is a bit like how you can go from text to video in Veo 3. It could say to make all of my experiences seem like plausible naturalism then there could be a prompt to do something that seems meaningful to me even if it could just seem like coincidence to other people.

 

[Fervent]

BTW I think I originally became an atheist due to logical reasoning. It was based on ideas like Answer's in Genesis's:

As many who become atheists believe, though I suspect there was more going on and the academic issues were the straw that broke the camel's back.

Why Does Creation Matter?

Is creation vital to the authority of Scripture and the gospel, or are we just wasting our time and being divisive—or worse, turning people away from Christ?

answersingenesis.org

Basically about all-or-nothing thinking.

Answers in Genesis is among the worst examples of theistic belief.

In particular it was about the Green River Formation and an ex-creationist showed me information about it and writings involving the issues. There were millions of varves and seemed to show a history of different lake sizes with different kinds of creatures throughout its history.
In high school I said to "God" that I wanted to know the truth, no matter how depressing it was. I guess that meant I was open to atheism at the time. Then I got very strong tingling in my body - one of the only times that has ever happened.

YEC and other beliefs like that are more about a particular power dynamic than they are about honest faith. It's often a reaction to uncertainty in life, as it gives comfort to think that such simplistic beliefs are true. But the falsehood of YEC doesn't render everything about the Bible false.

 

[JohnClay]

But the falsehood of YEC doesn't render everything about the Bible false.

Yeah I no longer believe in that kind of all-or-nothing thinking. I think God guided the Bible but hardly any of it is historical. But it is very interesting and can be very controversial though Christians can often justify it all as perfectly loving and moral, etc.

 

[Fervent]

Yeah I no longer believe in that kind of all-or-nothing thinking. I think God guided the Bible but hardly any of it is historical. But it is very interesting and can be very controversial though Christians can often justify it all as perfectly loving and moral, etc.

I'm of the opinion that there is a historical core to it, but that what that historical core is is largely unrecoverable especially for the OT. The only event that I take to be unassailable is the resurrection, since the story of Jesus really doesn't matter if its not true. Though that's not what I base my "rational" acceptance of it on, instead basing that on applying Occam's razor to the various explanations as the authenticity of the resurrection requires the fewest ad hoc additions to explain what we can reasonably establish factually about it.

 

[JohnClay]

I'm of the opinion that there is a historical core to it, but that what that historical core is is largely unrecoverable especially for the OT. The only event that I take to be unassailable is the resurrection, since the story of Jesus really doesn't matter if its not true.

That sounds to me like "it does matter" therefore it is true... though maybe my reasoning is flawed.

Though that's not what I base my "rational" acceptance of it on, instead basing that on applying Occam's razor to the various explanations as the authenticity of the resurrection requires the fewest ad hoc additions to explain what we can reasonably establish factually about it.