the anthropic principle .
it's true that life as it exists on earth, and the behavior of the universe as a whole, is finely tuned.
these constants, most physicists believe, were introduced at the time of the big bang, when the universe seems to have been created, or at least, to have begun again another cycle of creation.
Little Toe writes,
I would have thought it fairly fundamental to acknowledge that there is a creatorIf one can believe that the universe was created by something that has always existed--a god, why not instead imagine that the universe was not created and that it always existed?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the anthropic principle .
it's true that life as it exists on earth, and the behavior of the universe as a whole, is finely tuned.
these constants, most physicists believe, were introduced at the time of the big bang, when the universe seems to have been created, or at least, to have begun again another cycle of creation.
RWC,
I think you misunderstand the apostle argument. We are not arguing that the apostles willingly died because they saw with their own eyes that Jesus had risen. If they had witnessed the resurrection, then of course they would die for Jesus rather than give up Christianity, because the Jesus they knew taught they would live forever in the kingdom of God if they didn't forsake him. Thus, it's obvious they would have died for him had they known he was the son of God.
The argument instead is this: if there is evidence that followers of Jesus allowed themselves to be killed rather than forsake Christianity, may we take this as proof that they walked and talked with Jesus, were there before the crucifixion, during, and after, and had seen him resurrected?
My response was that followers of Jesus may have martyred themselves, but they might not have met Jesus, if he existed. When apologists argue that it makes no sense for one to martyr himself unless he truly believes, I respond by saying that that is absolutely true. But, believing is not the same as knowing, as David Koresh's followers, and untold Moslem martyrs have shown us.
Thus martydom by followers of Jesus does not prove that Jesus was resurrected, or even that he ever existed.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.
according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.
matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.
RWC,
You're right about my mistatement; I said that Mark didn't tell us about the angel prior to Verse 9, but that's not right.
Now, as for the late addition, the NIV notes that the most trustworthy manuscripts don't contain those verses. No scholar believes that the manuscripts with the later addition are more reliable, so we have good grounds for suspecting that the earliest gospel writer did not know about Mary's encounter with Jesus.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the anthropic principle .
it's true that life as it exists on earth, and the behavior of the universe as a whole, is finely tuned.
these constants, most physicists believe, were introduced at the time of the big bang, when the universe seems to have been created, or at least, to have begun again another cycle of creation.
Where else in history can you find men like the apostles that were willing to become martyrs due to their first hand evidence that Jesus was the Son of God, and witness to his resurrection? Were these men just unanimously stupid for choosing to be tortured for their beliefs?
David Koresh was the leader of the "Branch Davidian" sect in Waco, Texas; his followers thought he was Christ, and they let themselves be shot or burned alive rather than abandon him. Moslem martyrs sacrifice themselves because they believe Allah will send them straight to heaven. The fact that people will die for their beliefs doesn't make the beliefs true.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.
according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.
matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.
KJV,
I agree that Matthew and Luke probably took their resurrection stories from tradition, and that they did not have the later addition to Mark in hand when they wrote their stories, for the reason you state.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the anthropic principle .
it's true that life as it exists on earth, and the behavior of the universe as a whole, is finely tuned.
these constants, most physicists believe, were introduced at the time of the big bang, when the universe seems to have been created, or at least, to have begun again another cycle of creation.
The Anthropic Principle
It's true that life as it exists on earth, and the behavior of the universe as a whole, is finely tuned. These constants, most physicists believe, were introduced at the time of the Big Bang, when the universe seems to have been created, or at least, to have begun again another cycle of creation.
If just a few of those fundamental constants of the universe had been even slightly different, then the current form of life would not have been possible and there would be none of our life forms--such as stocwach--who could point to those "finely-tuned" constants and argue that there must be a god.
Instead, there would be other fundamental constants and other life forms, and some of them would offering the same argument as stocwach's.
Pascal's Wager
Some Christians argue that people should believe in the God of the Bible, because they have nothing to lose but everything to gain if the Bible is wrong. So, why not play it safe and believe in God?
But, why play it safe with the Christian god? Using his logic, to be prudent, stocwach would have to believe in the doctrines of every Christian denomination, as well as those of every other religion. Stocwach is gambling that the god described in his bible is the one true god, while the Moslem is gambling that the one true god is the one described in the Koran. Both think they are playing it safe, but both of them couldn't be more wrong.
Why does stocwach not believe in the god of Islam, just to be safe, and believe in all of the other gods, as well? The answer is obvious: stocwach is gambling that his religion and his god are true, and the others false. He's betting that the ball on the roulette table will land on his number when his time is up. But, shouldn't he bet on all of the numbers, just to be safe?
The Power of Intercessory Prayer
Prayer works, but only if the one being prayed for thinks--or knows--he's being prayed for. The effect is well understood, and has nothing to do with the supernatural. If one believes that the praying will help, it helps one to relax; the blood pressure is lowered, and the body is somewhat better able to fight the infection. Some improvements in the rate of recovery are well documented.
It is not true that intercessory prayer works on those who don't know or suspect they're being prayed for, contrary to what true believers will say. The only studies which purport to show this are bogus. I refer interested readers to the following sites:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msciprayer.html
http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1998/prayer-USAToday.html
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.
according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.
matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.
I respond to questions about the Anthropic Principle, Pascal's Wager, and intercessory prayer in another thread.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.
according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.
matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.
RWC,
You believe that differences among the various gospel accounts of the resurrection are unimportant, since the most important thing is that all gospel writers agree that Jesus was resurrected. However, that's really not true. The very first gospel writer, Mark, ends his gospel with the women finding the tomb empty and the women not telling anyone anything. Mark doesn't say anything about angels at the tomb telling Mary that Jesus had risen; he says nothing about Jesus meeeting with anyone. Only after a later scribe had fraudulently added verses 9-20 are the readers told about the resurrection.
Now, I know that you will not accept that these last verses are fake, so my remarks are really intended to enlighten those whose view of the Bible is less conservative than yours. You may wish to explain why the editors of the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and others, state that the most reliable, and the earliest, transcripts of Mark do NOT include verses 9-20. I'll let you check this yourself. Just go to Bible Gateway (linked on my website), where you'll find a dozen or so different Bible versions, and go to the footnotes at the end of Chapter 16.
If the original "Mark"--the very first gospel writer--didn't know about the angels speaking to Mary, and about Mary meeting Jesus, or about Jesus being resurrected, then why should we believe that any of these things happened?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.
according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.
matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.
RWC,
Your admission that the accounts of Matthew and Mark leave you wondering whether Mary was running away from the tomb when she encountered Jesus, or standing AT the tomb when she met Jesus makes it clear that the gospel writers did not do their job well. You also don't know whether there was just one young man in the tomb, or two angels.
The events surrounding the alleged resurrection are the most important ones since the dawn of time, so if an all-knowing god had inspired men to write down what happened, he certainly would have given them the power and wisdom to write down accounts which were not ambiguous, don't you think?
Since the God you believe in had the power to guide his writers to write stories that wouldn't leave readers such as you, two thousand years later, in doubt about the details of what happened at the resurrection, why shouldn't we take the obvious ambiguities and seeming inconsistencies as strong evidence that your God did not guide the Bible writers? And, if God didn't inspire them, why should we take on faith that what they wrote is accurate?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the following two accounts of the morning visit by the women to anoint jesus body are contradictory.
according to mark, the women wondered how they would remove the stone covering the tomb, but they found that it had already been rolled away.
matthew, however, says that when the women went to the tomb, there was an earthquake, and an angel came down from heaven, went to the tomb, and rolled the stone back.
RWC,
Matthew claims that Mary was running away from the tomb when she encountered Jesus, while John says Jesus appeared to Mary as she stood at the tomb.
Do you think both of these writers were correct about this?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
