Why do you believe?

[brightlights]

Jesus convinces me. His life, his work, his teaching, and his resurrection. Without him I would certainly not believe.

 

[Davian]

Jesus convinces me. His life, his work, his teaching, and his resurrection. Without him I would certainly not believe.

How very circular.

 

[pjnlsn]

What post? Why do you say it has more assumptions than any other interpretation? It's similar to PAP:

• "Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."

Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum mechanics, as John Archibald Wheeler has suggested, especially via his idea that information is the fundamental reality, see It from bit, and his Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) which is an interpretation of quantum mechanics associated with the ideas of John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner.

Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More than most, I suppose. See the following:

I mean the point of the interpretations is not to unite discrete disciplines, like GR and QM, but sometimes they seek to explain elements of QM by uniting it with or referencing classical physics. For example, Many-worlds essentially seeks to explain why it is that physics on the small-scale is so radically different than physics above the molar scale (more or less) by saying that alternate realities exist, and that very small particles are experiencing interference from very small particles in other universes.

The point, you say you have another interpretation, but you've never just described it directly and plainly, like I did above.

However, if I gather what you're suggesting correctly, it's insuperior to, for example, Many-worlds because has less, if it were true, predictive power, even only in the general sense. It dosen't tell us anything more about the universe itself (even if the universe *is* inside a computer simulation). It doesn't suggest anything more about the nature of the simulation/universe.

That is to say, I gather that you are suggesting that the universe is a simulation, and that in between Planck time, new values for the state of the universe are calculated and set. But this doesn't tell us anything more about the universe(/simulation) or indeed about why physics on the small-scale is different than physics on the molar scale, or anything specifically about QM.

I mean, the reason why, in what you're suggesting, that Q-scale physics is different is because what? The controller of the simulation just decided that's how it should be?

It doesn't explain what a QM interpretation is designed to explain, much like when one of the more informed religious believers says that God is actually 'outside' the universe, it doesn't explain anything.

 

[Gottservant]

If you could observe faith in this world, Man would doubt infinitely.

 

[pjnlsn]

If you could observe faith in this world, Man would doubt infinitely.

What's important is whether it's wrong or right to doubt, in terms of accuracy and likelihood of an idea.

 

[brightlights]

How very circular.

I'm not seeing the circle.

 

[singlecandle]

Because I see His works in my life and marvel at His Word.

 

[pjnlsn]

I'm not seeing the circle.

In that you say certain things are the hand of God or "Jesus" at work; And why? Because that's what they are.

Or is there some empirical justification making the existence of an entity with abstract abilities likely?

 

[super animator]

In that you say certain things are the hand of God or "Jesus" at work; And why? Because that's what they are.

Or is there some empirical justification making the existence of an entity with abstract abilities likely?

If there were, than the notation of faith is render irrelevant.

 

[pjnlsn]

If there were, than the notation of faith is render irrelevant.

You mean the 'notion.'

That you have faith in it being true does not make it true.

 

[Davian]

Jesus convinces me. His life, his work, his teaching, and his resurrection. Without him I would certainly not believe.

How very circular.

I'm not seeing the circle.

You are citing things that you take on faith as the reason you have faith.

 

[super animator]

You mean the 'notion.'

That you have faith in it being true does not make it true.

Let me repeat that in a different way.
"if there empirical evidence than the notion of faith is render null or meaningless."
I can re-clarify if I need to.


Btw why do you have the "seeking christ" icon? Your posts are not what I expected from users having that. Mind changing it to avoid confusion?

 

[brightlights]

In that you say certain things are the hand of God or "Jesus" at work; And why? Because that's what they are.

Or is there some empirical justification making the existence of an entity with abstract abilities likely?

Yes. The historical Jesus.

 

[brightlights]

You are citing things that you take on faith as the reason you have faith.

No. I believe in God's existence because of what the man Jesus did in history. My faith, in part, depends on history.

 

[directorrico]

Because I see His works in my life and marvel at His Word.

What work of his have you seen?

 

[directorrico]

No. I believe in God's existence because of what the man Jesus did in history. My faith, in part, depends on history.

In order to justify your faith, you need to depend on history?
That sounds like a win-win argument for you.

I believe X happened because if X did happen, then X happened.

 

[directorrico]

If you could observe faith in this world, Man would doubt infinitely.

Observe "believing in something without evidence"?
I observe over 4+ billion humans that do do that.

What are you saying

 

[Davian]

No. I believe in God's existence because of what the man Jesus did in history. My faith, in part, depends on history.

"...his work, his teaching, and his resurrection" are not history. They are bible stories, without non-conical support.

"The non-canonical pagan sources in fact never refer to the resurrection of Jesus until centuries later. Jesus actually never appears any non-canonical pagan source until 80 years after his death. So clearly he didn’t make a big impact on the pagan world. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus but didn’t believe in his resurrection. There are non-canonical Christian sources that talk about the resurrection, but unfortunately virtually all of them that narrate the event, although they are non-canonical Gospels, narrate the event in a way that disagrees with Bill’s reconstruction. They don’t believe that Jesus was physically, bodily raised from the dead. For evidence of that simply read the account of the Second Treatise of the Great Seth or read the account the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter; just go down the line. We do have one account in which Jesus comes out of the tomb. It’s in the Gospel of Peter; it’s an apocalyptic account. Jesus comes out of the tomb as tall as the skyscraper; following him is a cross which speaks to the heavens, clearly a legendary account of very little use to historians wanting to know what happened.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

 

[brightlights]

"...his work, his teaching, and his resurrection" are not history. They are bible stories, without non-conical support.

"The non-canonical pagan sources in fact never refer to the resurrection of Jesus until centuries later. Jesus actually never appears any non-canonical pagan source until 80 years after his death. So clearly he didn’t make a big impact on the pagan world. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus but didn’t believe in his resurrection. There are non-canonical Christian sources that talk about the resurrection, but unfortunately virtually all of them that narrate the event, although they are non-canonical Gospels, narrate the event in a way that disagrees with Bill’s reconstruction. They don’t believe that Jesus was physically, bodily raised from the dead. For evidence of that simply read the account of the Second Treatise of the Great Seth or read the account the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter; just go down the line. We do have one account in which Jesus comes out of the tomb. It’s in the Gospel of Peter; it’s an apocalyptic account. Jesus comes out of the tomb as tall as the skyscraper; following him is a cross which speaks to the heavens, clearly a legendary account of very little use to historians wanting to know what happened.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

This is funny.

 

[brightlights]

In order to justify your faith, you need to depend on history?
That sounds like a win-win argument for you.

I believe X happened because if X did happen, then X happened.

We believe all kinds of things because of history.