Dear OUG,

The comment about the universe being bounded was made in the context of some contemprary theories: e.g., Hartle-Hawking. Cause and Effect might not be the only means to creation and relationships with time or timelessness weird in comparison to the classical realm. In QM, for example, states can be "induced" by measurement.

Suetonius, Josephus and all other ancient references to Chrestus or other variants of the name are in doubt. Unlike with the advent of the printing press and first editions all works were transcribed by scribes who were free to put to make their own additions or deletions. Christian scribes may or may not have modified the writings. This is supposed to have happened with Josephus. We have no way of knowing what the original version of the works contained.

It is less likely to happen with archival material.

well its saturn-day again..so the post rate will slow down...
while people reajust their new inputs...

so in desperation of new input

quote/david..<<but..how did the Greeks/prove..there is no greatest number..with the notation/they had available?>>

this gave me great visualisation's...when it reflected in my mind

at first/i saw..one/person...thinking...
who sought to ac-count..for all he possesed...
so he accorded number/sign/symbol...that represented all that was his

in time/he accorded number's/numerals/symbols...for his whole village..
and thought yes my job is done..
but in time..he saw even greater quatities...

[as he visited/towns..or witnessed..huge battles..
or counted the leaves..on the trees..or the sands on the beach..
or even the days][not just the 7 named days..or the 12 named months]...

in short as his mind opened...up..to the concept..
he gained more insight..till/even his insights..outnumbered..even..the stars/in the heavens

olivers/quote..<<In QM,..for example,/states can be.."induced"..by measurement.>>
i thought it was induced/by the very act of measurment..but its such a small measure..measuring an onject..in motion*..is imp-possable

which reminds me of the math/problem..[for which i can only recall the visualisation..of two trains...in motion...]

that never/seem to catch up..because the other triain..will to infinity..gain..only half*..the distance/..if measured in time/fractions

[thats the trick..the question/er..wants the answer in time..not feet/inches/etc..or some other such vairiable...ideal

anyhow..i guess thats it..for this satern-day...
why isnt each day unique/
..ie have its own name..not just a numb-errr..?

interesting visualisation/..reminded me
that there is no/night..in the heavens...
thus no dawn..no sunset..
but as the realms/..rooms...in our fathers house..are in-finite...

thus..there is..the realm..of perpetual assent[sunrise]...
as well as the room..of perpetual decent..[sun-set]

but thats only a thought/visualisation
its not set in stone

anyhow..i go to play some music...
then maybe..fix the hole..where..the possum gets-in
that stops my mind..from wondering..

as well as my sleeper..from sleeping
and my questioner..from re-question-ing

anyhow...have a nice,..,'day'
all of you..

Hi Oliver,

<<Unlike AJ, I can "conceive" of a historical Jesus historical or some one like him.>>

I can conceive of a historical Jesus. It’s like I said to George a year ago:

I don’t know for sure that Socrates ever really existed, but there are no outlandish claims about the story of his life, so I’ll take it at face value that he did.

If you want to tell me that there was a progressive rabble-rouser 2000 years ago called Jesus who developed a bit of a following, then sure, I’ll take your word for it. But if you’re going to claim that he was the son of a God and performed miracles, then that’s going to take a lot more evidence than some ancient texts.

Hi Banjo,

I missed that post of yours, sorry. I’ve only been reading this thread intermittently due to ongoing computer troubles that should now be fixed. But I’m glad you’ve asked.

Firstly, I should have said “reliable evidence”. There’s a lot to address in the post of yours that you linked to - probably too much for me to go into here. But I’ve found a great link that addresses all of your points: http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

There’s a LOT of reading there, so you might just want to press CTRL+F, then type key words like “Epistles” and “Tacitus” to find where the points you raised have been addressed.

I think the main thing to remember here is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let’s put the evidence into context...

We’re not just talking about an important figurehead in history here, we’re talking about the alleged son of god - someone we’re supposed to find the creator of the universe through; someone we need to believe in, in order to avoid Hell (or eternal nothingness as the moderates tend to believe these days - as if it made the world of difference).

Continued...

...Continued

So when Christians present this as evidence for Jesus, what they’re essentially saying is that this almighty being - who couldn’t think of any better way to forgive us, for what he already knew we going to do, than to send his son down for us to kill - left nothing but a few scribblings from primitive, ignorant, superstitious, scientifically illiterate people as evidence for his visit.

It’s completely nuts.

But even if the evidence were reliable, there’s nothing about his brief visit that gives us any reason to think he was a god. For example, why would he perpetuate myths about demon possession - which added to superstition that led to so much bloodshed over many centuries - instead of providing us with valuable medical information such as: The occasional bath will prevent disease. Surely he’d want to let mankind in on the science of evolution too. It would prevent a lot of embarrassment for him.

Anyway, I’m just rambling now and I could go on forever here, but combine what I’ve said with the points in the link I provided and I think you’ll see why I went to the point of slightly overstating the evidence thing.

George,

Thanks for your response. It gave me some insight but you still managed to dance around my question.

<<I tried to sketch my attitude towards Bible in my posts to Dan and david f, and I cannot elaborate on this any more.>>

Yes, but that was more to do with how you interpret it than why you think it’s reliable.

<<Later, if one is thus inclined, one seeks also a “top down” understanding of the belief system underlying one’s faith by trying to position it among other world-views, belief systems. Some loose their faith in the process, some reinforce it. For me it was the second case.>>

Yes, but I was asking why it was the second case for you. I’ve explained why it’s rational to lose one’s faith in this process, but what I’m curious about is what rational reasons there would be for keeping it.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I do not remember calling “theological hair-splitting” a syllogism that goes from premise to conclusion.>>

That’s because you didn’t. But you did imply that it would be theological hair-splitting to go into how you got from presupposition to conclusion...

“However, then I would have to decide which one I opt for, which in my view is theological hair splitting” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151766)

<<Neither did I claim that religious belief or unbelief are reason-based...>>

Nor did I say that you did. I simply said that I don’t think going into how you get from presupposition to conclusion is unimportant if you want to present religious belief as being no more or less reason-based than unbelief - something you often do by mistakenly equating religious belief with the lack of religious belief as if they were two equally opposing views.

<<...only that they don’t go against reason.>>

But they do, and I’ve given many reasons over many threads here on OLO as to why. Some of which I’ve explained in my post to Banjo.

<<They may go against “common sense” but even recent developments in physics have shown that there are features of our Universe that seem to go against common sense.>>

Which is why I wouldn’t choose the term “common sense” in this situation. But physics is a still a parts of a measurable, demonstrable and verifiable reality; not something that is indistinguishable from nothing as something, not reducible to the physical, would be.

We’re not talking about something that may one day become apparent and even if it did, there’d be serious questions as to why it wasn’t apparent in the first place when there was an obligation for it to be.

<<There are many things in our lives that are not reason-based, but can enrich our experience of being human.>>

There are also a lot of beliefs in the lives of many that are not reason-based or rational and for that reason, they’re harmful rather than enriching.