Just passing by but I couldn't help but notice Peter Sellick still flogging his dead horse of a theology.

Anyone can watch a youtube of an NT Wright or Lane Craig etc debate the Resurrection these days, and judge for themselves - they need no strange spiritualism that it seems Peter alone has gnostic access to. Christianity is a vulnerable religion, if Jesus didn't rise from the dead it is false and no one should be a Christian. But to pretend that no evidence could refute it, as if it weren't an historical religion but Hinduism or Buddhism is just untenable.

If a person didn't know much about Christianity they could be forgiven for thinking after reading Sellick that it claims that the Resurrection's meaning is exhausted by establishing its historical veracity alone. Which is as silly as claiming writing on a page alone, without the language, is enough to determine meaning. Higher meanings stand on the actual events like the holocaust for those present, which may have many facets, stands on the actual events. The dichotomy between faith and the history is simply a false one: the Greek word for faith in the manuscripts means something like trust based on a reasonable probability, something describing a friendship.Not Peter's interpretation of internal spiritual enthusisams. Of course one can't measure the trust we put in a friend based on their past loyalty, but that doesn't mean the object of our friendship, our friend, doesn't really exist.

Peter too simply assumes a mechanical philosophy - http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/06/materialist-shell-game.html it has no necessary connection with the methods of physical science any google of 'scientism' is enough to prove that. A Christian has no requirement to accept this silly philosophy.

To maintain this descredited theology Peter must scrupulously avoid all the philosophical, biblical, historical, cosmological and physical scientific evidence arrayed in favour of traditional orthodox belief. Something only a click away.

Also a click away is the 'historical event' of Altizer's (the thinker Peter draws from) famously bad loss to JW Montogmery's in debate.

It seems a sad waste of time. Anyway God bless everyone.

george/quote..""images or models of God
that he/she often identifies with the ineffable God/YHWH/Allah)
are just two sides of the same coin,..""

ie ""that “God created man” and “man created God”
ie in image form
immitation being the mnost sincere form of flatery
[however...not anywhere near the same thing

""(like e.g. the particle wave/duality).""

ok thats the bit i wanted to give insight to
particles of photons[light]..are released sequentially
by specific change...in wave form..[to wit particles..together..
acting [re-acting..]*IN waves][ie both are specififc and follow logical sequence]

i guess its natural..that being in gods image
we try to create an image of our master event

""the basic entities and relations of mathematics
are believed to exist independently of our mental
as well as physical world.""

i can accept that

""realists or Platonists,..who accept Roger Penrose’s three intertwined but distinct worlds: physical, mental and mathematical.""

lets say spirit
in lue of math-ematical
i could agree...the spirit cant be subverted by math
but probalility should make a case for possable cause
[math is more in the mental..but cause is remains spirit]

""I accept a fourth world,
simply described as supernatural,""

ok i agree math is a realm as well

""also intertwined with the other three,
“built around” the notion of an ineffable God""

ineffable..:to extreem for words?
or to sacred to be utterd?

neither desribes..that condition
god ascribes to all living beings

""an ineffable God..who carries the cause/purpose of those other three worlds and is the cause/purpose also of Himself.""

apparently..these 'worlds'[realms planes]
..levels..overlap each other [much like a number can be many divergent comminalities..but also just be a prime[sorry im not into math..thus cant follow the math into words]

""Without..what I know about
(pure)mathematics would not make much sense to me.
Similarly,..without belief in such an ineffable God,..what I know about the human condition would not make much sense to me."'

i agree..we need to have a form of context
[common denominators...symbols signs..known..as well as unknown's]

hence the value of good works
good deeds..over good words
charity over faith

what we did
rather than how we said it

Martin Ibn...""..Christianity is a vulnerable religion,
if Jesus didn't rise from the dead it is false
and no one should be a Christian.""

jesus didnt 'come' to form a religeon
his mission was primarilly..to unite
then refute the replacement of creed/ritual with the messages

then he refuted dead being dead
[ie the lie of a 'reserction day']
as well as disproving judgment day.

he rose from the death
proving life after death

[ps he isnt comming 'back']

""But to pretend that no evidence could refute it,
as if it weren't an historical religion..but Hinduism or Buddhism is just untenable.""

i note you offer no proof

""Higher meanings stand on the actual events
like the holocaust for those present,..which may have many facets, stands on the actual events.""

all i know is kapoes ran the camps
and the biggest deaths were of russians/poles
the hollow caust...has become a religeon for some..to cast blame
upon those who wernt even there..

or claim some form of credit due..
that allows your own mossad capoes
to do the same genocide slowly..[to the true semites]..same natzie acts..[in the 5th reiche..in the holy lands]

satan
in the holy of holies

""one can't measure the trust we put in a friend
based on their past loyalty,..""

thats why jesus said by their works will we know them
not their words

""but that doesn't mean the object of our friendship,
our friend,..doesn't really exist.""

nor validate that he/she does

""'scientism' is enough to prove that.

scientism..;'excess belief
in science knowledge or teqnuiques'

""A Christian has no requirement to accept this silly philosophy."'

i find science confirms gods rightfull place
and find it a usefull interplay..with the god logus
[as all..is being his work...i can know the master..by his deeds
his creations]


""Anyway God bless everyone.""

yep me too
thanks for the advic

Dear Bugsy,

God was not invented. The most people (myself included) can invent is IDEAS about God. Besides mere inventions, people are also capable of having insights about God. Neither of these comes close to the direct experience of God.

Dear Poirot,

I was writing to OUG in his own language, so that requires translation:
The common-person's will is clouded and distorted by their mental desires. "God's will" roughly translates to "What your will would be had it not been affected by your mind".

Dear George,

"Well, I accept a fourth world, simply described as supernatural"

That certainly explains our differences.

I also speculate on the existence of subtler layers of the physical world which science has not yet discovered, may never will, and perhaps is even unable to. Yet I don't delegate these into a different new realm and I don't go looking for God there. In fact, I consider the supernatural more likely, if anything, a diversion away from God. You may recall that the Soviets were very keen on researching this area.

I can see why you need this fourth-world in order to make sense of the other three, but:
1) your personal need to make sense makes no difference to reality.
2) God has no cause nor purpose, not even Himself! God is not subject to time (and thinking about it, why should even that which is subject to time require a cause or a purpose?).

Penrose’s “mathematical world" makes good sense (excepting hiccups like Godel's incompleteness), the physical world somewhat less and the chaotic mental world even less than the former. Dividing the world according to the level of sense it makes, is artificial.

As for ticking the box, it is indeed unpleasant to be counted as an atheist, but if that's how they define it, than it's not my fault. I believe in God, I love God, I take refuge in God, I just do not believe in trivializing Him as if He were something that exists.

Dear Yuyutsu,
>> I consider the supernatural more likely, if anything, a diversion away from God.<<
Then we obviously have different understandings not only of the verb “exists” but also of the noun “God”. If there is anything that the most conservative Christian and Richard Dawkins have in common then it is their understanding that supernatural is not a diversion away from God, but that the two concepts are intrinsically linked.

Where I differ from both is that God exists not only solely as part of the supernatural (as the conservative might claim) nor completely only as part of our mental world (Dawkins’ “delusion”) but both. Thinking of God, praying, meditating (yes, I know this is a restricted meaning of meditating since Buddhists and their western imitators meditate without reference to God) is not unlike the mathematician’s dilema of inventing/discovering.

>> the existence of subtler layers of the physical world which science has not yet discovered, may never will, and perhaps is even unable to<<
If you accept layers of reality which science “never will, and perhaps is even unable to” discover, why call these layers physical. Perhaps we differ also in the understanding of “physical”, although, at second thought, I would prefer "aspects of reality" instead of "layers".

>>I can see why you need this fourth-world in order to make sense of the other three<<
I never said that; I actually quoted the athist mathematician Penrose for whom his three worlds make sense without any reference to God or the supernatural.

>> your personal need to make sense makes no difference to reality<<
Neither did I claim this, but since you mention it, this applies also to what makes sense to you about how God can/has to be understood.

You do not accept my, and many theists’, need for the supernatural, as there are mathematicians who are not Platonists, i.e. do not accept a nedd for Penrose’s mathematical world. I was not defending these beliefs, I was just trying to explain them to you. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>God has no cause nor purpose, not even Himself! <<
I agree since I consider “has no cause/purpose” and “is his/its own cause/purpose” as equivalent, whether applied to God or to Dawkins’ understanding of the world.

>>Penrose’s “mathematical world" makes good sense (excepting hiccups like incompleteness)<<
I don't understand where the hiccups come from: Goedel, the author of the two incompleteness theorems, was a (mathematical) Platonist (and theist).

>>Dividing the world according to the level of sense it makes, is artificial.<<
Well, I do not understand how else could you “do” e.g. science.

>>it is indeed unpleasant to be counted as an atheist, but if that's how they define it, than it's not my fault. <<
This sounds like voting for e.g. the ALP, while feeling unplesant about being counted as an ALP voter.