Did Jesus Even Care....

[A_Thinker]

Then your assertion that one is more complex than another is as unsupportable as saying the rock is more complex than the watch.

That's a claim, but I think that I can put forward a pretty good argument as why a watch is more complex (i.e. encodes more information) than a rock.

How would you determine that one rock is more complex than some other rock?

Well ... I guess that you would examine the rocks in question ...

 

[A_Thinker]

I think we may still be on differing tracks here

The scenario goes as follows:

A):man
B):Jesus
C):man

A):man trusted in Jesus as the Messiah.

How about C):man? Did C):man either:

a: Also think He was the Messiah, but rebel/reject His request
b: Not think He was the Messiah, and discard Him as not being the Messiah

The difference between the two men is that ...

One felt that he had nothing to gain from Jesus

While the other, at least, hoped that he might have something to gain from Jesus

Recall that all (3) were, shortly, facing sure physical death.

 

[cvanwey]

I would say, rather, that He was beloved of many people, because of how He expressed His love to them.

Expression of love is what deems one divine?

And ... why wouldn't we believe He rose from the dead ?

-Because extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence
-Lack in any evidence in general
-Is your belief in this resurrection, while rejecting other extraordinary claims, being consistent in your own logic?

What would prevent us from believing this ?

Reason. Unless you begin by accepting all extraordinary claims, by default?

there's no body.

If a body is never found, it rose from the dead?

Thousands went to their deaths because they preached that He had resurrected, including hundreds which would have known that it wasn't true.

-Martyrdom demonstrates truth?
-Do we actually have sufficient evidence to suggest many went to their graves, attesting to seeing a risen Jesus?

His life/death caused a dramatic shift in belief-systems among the Jews.

Does this, in any way, account for truth in a claim?

There were several factions which stood to gain if they could have proven the resurrection was false, and yet they never did.

Can you prove a negative in general?

 

[cvanwey]

The difference between the two men is that ...

One felt that he had nothing to gain from Jesus

While the other, at least, hoped that he might have something to gain from Jesus

Recall that all (3) were, shortly, facing sure physical death.

Did the other man think He was the Messiah, or not?

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's a claim, but I think that I can put forward a pretty good argument as why a watch is more complex (i.e. encodes more information) than a rock.

Please do.

Well ... I guess that you would examine the rocks in question ...

What are you looking for?

 

[A_Thinker]

-Because extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence

That's certainly one position ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Please do.

Well, for one, the rock is natural, likely only acted upon by natural forces. It is, likely, homogeneous in material, though that's not guaranteed. It performs no particular preplanned function, though it may, in actuality, function as a paperweight. There is no way to, repeatedly encode new information into it's structure, and it may last, as it is, for thousands of years.

The watch, OTOH, is made of several raw materials. The materials have been mined and purified and shaped and fitted by human intelligence, to operate together to perform the preplanned function of tracking the passing of time. The watch has a mechanism whereby new information and energy may be encoded into it as often as necessary for it to continue to function. The watch may also, be used one day as a paperweight, and it will doubtfully continue to last, as it is, for much longer than a few years.

 

[A_Thinker]

Did the other man think He was the Messiah, or not?

It really did not matter, as he was not open to receive any benefit from Him ...

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, for one, the rock is natural, likely only acted upon by natural forces. It is, likely, homogeneous in material, though that's not guaranteed. It performs no particular preplanned function, though it may, in actuality, function as a paperweight. There is no way to, repeatedly encode new information into it's structure, and it may last, as it is, for thousands of years.

The watch, OTOH, is made of several raw materials. The materials have been mined and purified and shaped and fitted by human intelligence, to operate together to perform the preplanned function of tracking the passing of time. The watch has a mechanism whereby new information and energy may be encoded into it as often as necessary for it to continue to function. The watch may also, be used one day as a paperweight, and it will doubtfully continue to last, as it is, for much longer than a few years.

Well look at it this way: Do you know what it takes to describe White noise - Wikipedia ? As you may note from the link the signal appears uniformly distributed and relatively uncomplicated. (I apologize, I tried to embed the image and I failed.)

Fundamentally, however, describing such a signal requires as many bits (actually, considerably more) are there are dots. Each is unique with a unique distance and amplitude from that which preceded it.

What it takes to describe something like a sine wave is two pieces of information: frequency/period and amplitude. The sine wave is "ordered" yet in terms of describing such a thing mathematically it is literally infinitely more simple.

In this case, the designed thing is less complex. I'd venture on these terms, that a rock is more complicated than a watch and yet most don't consider it designed. Nobody praises the rock-maker.

Randomness and haphazardness is more complex than orderliness.

This is why defining one's metric is important.

You say that the rock was operated on only by natural forces, and yet you are trying to prove that that which is natural is designed. Seems like a mixed message to me. Is nature designed or not?

WRT Paley's watch argument, if nature is designed, why notice the watch at all? We notice the watch because it is not like nature at all. The reasonable conclusion is that nature is not designed.

 

[cvanwey]

It really did not matter, as he was not open to receive any benefit from Him ...

I'll cut to the chase, since you never really answer many of my question(s).

As I told you many posts ago, it is likely impossible to have love for something for which you do not even think exists.

The second guy probably did not think He was the Messiah. Hence, he did not think the Messiah claim was existent in Him. Why? It's likely he never knew Him. He likely never followed Him. And maybe, never heard of Him before. He had no prior evidence, except a bold claim during their execution.

Thus, do you find it 'reasonable' for someone, who is setting next to another, to claim they are THE ONE, and for the receiving recipient of this claim to take this claim, purely upon faith alone???

This requires quite a tremendous amount of credulity. Without any evidence at all, it's just a claim - (like the man on the cross, whom likely never knew of Jesus before the cross)?

Which begs a follow-up question, for which you have yet to answer.

HOW do you determine which extraordinary claims to adhere faith upon, as being true, verses the ones you outright reject? I'd guess the ones for which you opt to entertain, are tied to some type of evidence; and not instead pure credulity, right?.?.?.?. Otherwise, I could tell you, "I'm Batman", and you would have to believe me, right?

Thus, did Jesus care whether or not He provided evidence for His resurrection? You say no-ish. And yet, He went out of His way to assure some KNEW He was the one. And all others, He wants pure credulity?

And as I also stated prior, belief is not a choice. When Jesus contacted Thomas, He opted to assure Thomas was given concrete evidence to believe - (not a choice). Please reference the cheating spouse example, as given prior.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'll cut to the chase, since you never really answer many of my question(s).

As I told you many posts ago, it is likely impossible to have love for something for which you do not even think exists.

The second guy probably did not think He was the Messiah. Hence, he did not think the Messiah claim was existent in Him. Why? It's likely he never knew Him. He likely never followed Him. And maybe, never heard of Him before. He had no prior evidence, except a bold claim during their execution.

Thus, do you find it 'reasonable' for someone, who is setting next to another, to claim they are THE ONE, and for the receiving recipient of this claim to take this claim, purely upon faith alone???

This requires quite a tremendous amount of credulity. Without any evidence at all, it's just a claim - (like the man on the cross, whom likely never knew of Jesus before the cross)?

Which begs a follow-up question, for which you have yet to answer.

HOW do you determine which extraordinary claims to adhere faith upon, as being true, verses the ones you outright reject? I'd guess the ones for which you opt to entertain, are tied to some type of evidence; and not instead pure credulity, right?.?.?.?. Otherwise, I could tell you, "I'm Batman", and you would have to believe me, right?

Thus, did Jesus care whether or not He provided evidence for His resurrection? You say no-ish. And yet, He went out of His way to assure some KNEW He was the one. And all others, He wants pure credulity?

And as I also stated prior, belief is not a choice. When Jesus contacted Thomas, He opted to assure Thomas was given concrete evidence to believe - (not a choice). Please reference the cheating spouse example, as given prior.

I notice you're not offering any solutions.

Jesus did care to provide evidence for His resurrection, ". . .since this thing was not done in a corner." - Acts 26:26

Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

- Luke 24:25-27
​

So yeah, even if you read the narrative as pure fiction, Jesus provided enough public evidence and He did so purposefully.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

That's a claim, but I think that I can put forward a pretty good argument as why a watch is more complex (i.e. encodes more information) than a rock.

Level of complexity is irrelevant. Based on your stated position, you are unable to look around and differentiate things from God's creation vs things that come about through natural causes when you say that they are all created.

I'm not saying this proves there is no God, it simply proves that the Watchmaker Argument is nonsensical. Its premise is that you can distinguish something that is created vs something that is natural; and the conclusion is that nothing is natural and everything is created. Meaning you can not do the thing the premise was built on. It's a self-defeating argument.

 

[A_Thinker]

I'm not saying this proves there is no God, it simply proves that the Watchmaker Argument is nonsensical.

I can tell the difference between something that encompasses human intelligence ... and something that doesn't ...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I can tell the difference between something that encompasses human intelligence ... and something that doesn't ...

That's right. You can give examples of something created vs something not created. Most rocks were not created by an intelligence. Now, if you want to then say that God made rocks and every single thing, you can't appeal to our ability to distinguish between created and not created things because again not created things don't exist in your worldview.

 

[A_Thinker]

That's right. You can give examples of something created vs something not created. Most rocks were not created by an intelligence. Now, if you want to then say that God made rocks and every single thing, you can't appeal to our ability to distinguish between created and not created things because again not created things don't exist in your worldview.

I don't agree with your reasoning here ... every humanly made thing ... does not require the same amount of intelligence ... but they do require intelligence.

To speculate that the complexity of a rock ... and any form of life ... is comparable ... is foolishness ...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I don't agree with your reasoning here ... every humanly made thing ... does not require the same amount of intelligence ... but they do require intelligence.

To speculate that the complexity of a rock ... and any form of life ... is comparable ... is foolishness ...

Okay. I concede. There is evidence that God is real because obviously Hell is real since I'm currently experiencing it. Thanks for the chat and please enjoy your victory.

 

[A_Thinker]

Okay. I concede. There is evidence that God is real because obviously Hell is real since I'm currently experiencing it. Thanks for the chat and please enjoy your victory.

You do realize that I've been answering your questions (from my viewpoint) as they were directed to me. I wasn't looking for a victory.

Sorry about your difficulties ...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

You do realize that I've been answering your questions (from my viewpoint) as they were directed to me. I wasn't looking for a victory.

Sorry about your difficulties ...

No. We are talking past each other and there are few things that I find more difficult than not being able to find the words to make myself clear.

I'm saying that we can't distinguish between "God-created" and "not God-created" and you respond with statements about varying levels of complexity in human-created things. One of us is refusing to have the same conversation and I don't care if it's you or it's me but it is taxing and I thank you for your time.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't agree with your reasoning here ... every humanly made thing ... does not require the same amount of intelligence ... but they do require intelligence.

To speculate that the complexity of a rock ... and any form of life ... is comparable ... is foolishness ...

Sorry. If I may interject here???

What it sounds like you are saying, is that "everything is created" by some intelligence. You can distinguish between WHICH intelligence created something. For example:

crude oil = made by God
synthetic oil = made my humans

mined diamond = made by God
lab created diamond = made by humans

But then you would have to ALSO concede that lightening, tornadoes, storms, and hurricanes are created. OTHERWISE, the diamond and oil can also just as easily be excluded.

Since humans are not yet able to initiate such earthly phenomenon, out in the 'wild', what creating forces are driving these activities?

When it rains, which waters your plants, did God create this?
When a tornado kills, who created this?

 

[cvanwey]

@A_Thinker

Are we done with our prior discussion? Otherwise, I would like to continue in posts #69 and #110.