"Corrie" wrote
"Eric Miller" wrote

God wants us to trust him.

Remember that trust isn't a right, it has to be earned. I can't trust that
which:
a) doesn't exist in the first place, or
b) if it did exist has been shown to be arbitrary, inconsistent and at least
as foul tempered and prone to tantrums as any over-tired 2 year old.
He can have my trust after a spanking, a time out, has thought about all
he's done wrong, and has sincerely apologized for his bad behavior. Maybe.

You're mixing apples and oranges. We're not talking about a
technology demonstration, we're talking about a singular historical
event.

The historical is irrelevant, it's the singular that's the conundrum.
If it only apparently happened once 2000 years ago, we can safely call it
observer/experimental error and ignore it.

I can accept mundane specific events that don't violate the laws of
physics.

If an observation conflicts with our understanding of how the world
works, then either the observation or our understanding may be in
error. You're assuming that your undertanding of the way things work
is accurate. Two hundred years ago, it was believed that a human
being would die if he traveled at more than 25 miles per hour. A
hundred and ten years ago, it was believed that heavier-than-air
flight violated the laws of physics. Seventy years ago, it was widely
believed that supersonic flight was impossible. Fifty years ago, the
thought of living in space was the stuff of fantasy.

But continued observation and experimentation has led to greater
understanding of how things work.
No observation or experimentation has resulted in resurrection. Until it
does, there's no need to change our understanding.

Today, laboratory observations of quantum synchronicity phenomena
appear to violate the laws of physics. Does that mean that the
observations are erroneous, or that the "laws of physics" need to be
revised?

No, because they're predicted and expected by quantum mechanics.
What's more, quantum mechanics predicts other things which we can test and
verify.
That's what makes QM useful and valuable.
Theories which don't predict and can't be tested or verified are useless and
worthless.

Now you can say that the Resurrection predicts an after-life... but unless
someone comes back and confirms then it's untestable.
If someone DOES come back, it satisfies my required for repeatability.
But then it would also supply proof, which defies faith, so it can't be
ALLOWED to happen.
A nice little bit of circular logic.

Now, I already know that you're going to counter with the "but those
are repeatable experiments." But they are repeatable only if you're
willing to use the tools. If I refuse to believe the evidence of an
airspeed indicator, then you can never convince me that Yeager broke
Mach 1. It's like the "Apollo was faked" crowd. They reject or
reinterpret every piece of evidence there is. What will it take to
convince them of the truth? They don't know and they can't say. :-D

Concepts of reality change. My view of what is possible is simply
larger than yours. Prayer works. But you have to actually PRAY to
find that out.

Prayer works. So do sugar pills, with the same efficacy. Consult your
physician for possible side effects of either.

BTW, have you ever read "Flatland"? It's a very good metaphor for
what we're talking about. There's a whole race of beings that exist
in two dimensions. The all live on a flat plane called "Flatland."
One day a sphere passes through. The Flatlanders see it as a dot that
grows into a circle, expands, and finally shrinks back to a dot and
vanishes. Some Flatlanders perceive this phenomenon as evidence of
the 3rd dimension. Skeptics argue that the third dimension simply
does not exist. They've never personally experienced it, don't trust
eyewitnesses who saw the circle, and have no use for such silly
superstitions.

Of course I know "Flatland".
And if the sphere should pass through flatland but once, what need is there
to explain it?

And just because they're in a 2D world, doesn't prohibit them from
formulating a 3D model.
That, however, doesn't make the 3D world real (see superstring theory... not
to be confused with Silly String).


Further, while there's a elegant 3D explanation in this case, it's not
REQUIRED.
You could just as easily explain it as a growing and shrinking circle, and
it's just as valid.

Fortunately, there's no need to, because I suspect human nature has
changed
very little over 2000 years.
People are just as poor observers, just as gullible, just as
superstitious
and just as willing to believe what they want to believe today.

That's not an argument based on the evidence. That's merely a slur
directed at people of a different culture. A thousand years from now,
people will look back at us as hopelessly backwards, gullible, etc.
(Remember Star Trek's Dr. MCoy's reaction to the idea of surgery?
"Cutting people open and sewing them back up - how BARBARIC!")

I challenge you to get off your modernist high-horse and actually
investigate the scholarly evidence. I'm not suggesting that you take
the Bible on faith. Just look at it through the lens of a scholar.
Set your assumptions and prejudices aside and just look at the
evidence.

You misread me. No modernistic high-horse here!
I'm not judging the people of 2000 years ago and saying they're gullible....
I'm saying people TODAY are gullible, and the people of 2000 years ago were
likely no better.

No, I don't wonder at all.
People believe in life after death because they don't like the idea of a
one
time existence and then vanishing forever into nothingness.

What I find truly disturbing is that these people find more comfort in
the
possibility of eternal torment than in just being snuffed out.

Interesting point. There's a fairly large school of thought within
even conservative Christianity that suggests that Hell is eternal
destruction, not eternal torment. Dead and gone, not dead and
burning. Either way, it's a ****-poor alternative to eternal life in
paradise. Imagine - no need for annuals or pre-flights! :-D

Or maybe an endless string of BFRs! :P

But is paradise an actual, available alternative or are you just fooling
yourself?
"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" clearly applies.

I see it as just the opposite. Believing that this-is-all-there-is
lets you avoid the unpleasant thought that maybe there really is a
Judge, and that you don't measure up - no matter how "good enough" you
think you are. Grow up indeed.

It's just a reality, pleasantness or unpleasantness doesn't enter into it;
it simply is.
And I have no doubt about measuring up as "good enough", in this or any
other category... except humility.
(But really, what's the point if you can't claim bragging rights for being
the Most Humble Ever! )

People all over the world, regardless of religion, are generally
good.
We band together and help each other in times of need.
We don't have to be told this, we just do it, and we do it well.

You can say the same for murder and pillage. "We just do it, and we
do it well." Didja ever stop to consider that the civilization we
take for granted here in the US is wildly atypical? Most of the world
settles disagreements with guns and knives, not words. People band
together, sure - to help their own tribe. But we better kill the
other guys before they take our stuff - THAT is the history of the
human race. Sad but true.

Murder and pillage are also universally punished.

Not when it's government policy, or if there's no government. Just
ask anyone from Cambodia, Bosnia, or Rwanda.

Exceptions which prove the rule.

Eric