Panic,
Explain why the universe can be eternal and infinite and the “First cause” cannot be eternal and infinite?
I finally got through the whole video. Another example of why web search is not equivalent to research. If you want a scholarly treatment by someone who actually knows what their talking about on this, I would recommend the book, The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? by Ronald Nash.
I addressed this pathetic argument in another post in another topic, but I don’t remember which one. At any rate, Ronald Nash does a much better job than I do.
Think about what you just asked. If the universe is infinite and eternal (without a beginning), it was not created.
If the universe was created by God, then God is separated from the universe…he is transcendent. Now you have a God, who was not created, and then a created universe from a nothingness, by this God. How does this God, which was not created itself, create something in a void? Where does he get the stuff from?
I’m telling you that once you drop all the Cartesian/Platonic rubbish and hook up with Spinoza…everything will become clearer and simpler. The fact is for every one truth your model explains…there are five more problems it does not. Use Occam’s razor for the closest shave.
NO, you missed my main point I thought I was driving home with a hammer,IT IS MATHMETICALLY INCREADABLE …………which is ……………LOGICAL EVIDENCE to the existence of the Intelligent Absolute Alternitive.
Because we don’t see infinity in causality, we cant see that far in this reality.
Because circular connectivity without an ultimate source breaks all the rules of what we can see in this physical world. It just doesn’t logically follow, there’s a gap that breaks the seen rules of reality. We can only see a little past our nose’s, and that nose says there is a source and a purpose, that’s why we see sources and purpose in everything, thats what we call reality.
All of science’s great minds can get no further then a singular “Big Bang†theory without a hint of proof as to where the energy of movement, (which is heat and life) came from. And that it’s not measurable by physical instruments which means its probably not physical or of this dimension.
You are ignoring LR’s point about time. If given sufficient opportunity, anything that can possibly happen, will almost certainly happen.
Off subject, but something to think about – Does free will exist in heaven?
If it doesn’t, then why is it so prized by believers on earth?
If free will does exist in heaven, then it, in combination with eternal life, will almost certainly result in your rejection of god when you get to heaven. This will almost certainly occur because anything that might possibly occur WILL almost certainly occur if it is given sufficient opportunity to occur.
Hasn’t it been known for a long long time that there are parallels between Christianity and ancient Pagan religions?
first hit on Google:
religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm
The article gives some reasons for this, e.g.
Christians copied Pagans: This is perhaps the most obvious theory. Celsus was a Platonist and polemical writer against Christianity who lived in the late 2nd century CE According to Freke & Gandy, he “complained that this recent religion [of Christianity} was only a pale reflection” of Pagan belief. 3 According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Celsus pointed out that Christianity copied the concepts of others. Christian "…ideas concerning the origin of the universe, etc., are common to all peoples and to the wise men of antiquity."4 Many modern-day writers and theologians have accepted this theory. 3,5,6,7
Satan did it to deceive: Various early church writers, such as Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons; circa 120 CE to ?) Justin Martyr (Christian apologist; 100 to 165), Tertullian (Christian theologian; circa 160 to 220 +) concluded that the Pagan/Christian similarities were a Satanic attempt at “diabolical mimicry.” Satan was said to have use “plagiarism by anticipation.” That is, the Devil made a pre-emptive strike against the gospel stories centuries before Jesus was born. The reason was to confuse the public into thinking that Jesus was merely a copy of previous god-men. The goal was to demolish the credibility of Christianity in the people’s eyes.
What many of the ancient myths manifest is the common perception that humanity is fallen, the inability of humanity to save itself, and the need for divine help to do so. This yearning for a savior was the common mythological theme in many of the pre-literate and early literate societies. It has no logical bearing on the factual truth of the scriptural accounts of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
And that’s a problem because…?
Why do so many of the “myths” say it? could it be that people have a desire for this and so invented it? If they invented the “myths” and “This yearning for a savior was the common mythological theme” Does it not follow that Jesus is also a yearning for a savior?
You should read that whole article. Some people might argue that Jesus is nothing new; just a re-adaptation of a “myth” of course changed to fit in with the Roman empire…
Because it was a common experience. It still is. The human race appears to be messed up. We keep repeating the same mistakes. Well no, it doesn’t “follow.”
Hey I watched the movie and I have read plenty of such articles. People argue all kinds of things that are not true. The historicity of Jesus is as well established as many accepted historical persons of that period.
Jesus was received by the people who became the early Church as the Messiah. That means they saw him as the realization of a lot of traditional Hebrew symbolic material. The Hebrew tradition drew from symbolic resources of antiquity that were not absolutely unique to them. Hellenization no doubt had it’s influence on early Christianity as well.
It isn’t surprising that Jesus was understood through the cultural, religious and philosophical understandings of his time. From a naturalistic perspective how could it be otherwise? That doesn’t negate Jesus’ historical existence.
Panic,
You claimed that the universe was infinite and eternal and because of that the “First Cause” couldn’t be infinite and eternal. You haven’t provided any evidence that the universe is infinite and eternal.
There is plenty of evidence that the universe is finite. First the Big Bang theory says that it is finite with a beginning. This theory remains the Standard Model for cosmology. If you adopt a strict naturalistic philosophy, the Big Bang says that it was created uncaused out of nothing. Not very logical, but that’s what the theory implies if your a naturalist. Nothing material passes through a singularity according to the theory. There’s no way for a material cause for the Big Bang based on the current state of the theory.
Regardless of the Big Bang theory, the universe cannot be infinite in time in the past because you cannot have an infinite number of things in reality, infinity is merely a mathematical concept, an infinite number of events can’t exist in reality. Also if the universe were infinite in time, every possible cause and effect that could have happened, would have already happened. Just think about the thermodynamic implications, the universe would have suffered a heat death an infinite time ago, we would not exist.
The universe cannot be eternal (timeless) because the universe in which we live changes through cause and effect which we observe. If all the causes and effects in the universe are just a mechanical consequence that would occur whenever sufficient conditions were met, and the sufficient conditions were met eternally, then all possible cause and effects would have existed concurrently from eternity. All deterministic effects would be co-eternal with the causes. In other words there is no deterministic potential for any change. In an eternal environment there is no “was”, there is no “to be” there’s just “is”. For this same reason, a different deterministic eternal universe, can’t cause the finite universe in which we live.
I think the theistic answer would be that he is capable of making something out of nothing. This is a bigger problem for the naturalist in that the Big Bang created the universe uncaused out of nothing.
As soon as there is a rational naturalistic explanation for the Big Bang, then you can claim that Occam’s razor applies.
Democritus,
How many of the sources for this article are historical or New Testament scholars, or are they people just trying to sell books?
As a pagan myself and knowledgeable of my own history and the history of Christianity I can verify the parallels.
Demtri,
There are an awful lot of links to Amazon.com for book sales in this article. However the article itself let’s the cat out of the bag. If you look at a scholarly work on this your going to find that much of what is claimed in popular books is extremely exaggerated or in some cases flat out inaccurate.
From the article:
Reverse copying: A strong case can be made that wholesale copying of beliefs and rituals by various religions has occurred in the past. However, as noted above, some Christian beliefs and practices may have stolen by the followers of Mithra from their Christian rivals rather than vice versa. This theory might have some validity with respect to Mithraism. However, it cannot explain the stories of the life of Horus which proceeded Jesus’ ministry in the first century CE by a few thousand years.
So you are claiming that my beliefs and history is extremely exaggerated? I am not talking about books on Amazon, I am talking about the history of my religion. The roots of my religion surpass Christianity and were written long before the Bible.
If that is your claim, then you are fine to have it. I will not argue over religion. I wanted to make sure that is what you are trying to say.
Demtri,
I don’t know what other sources you are using, but I’m not willing to accept the testimony of some one who’s primary interest seems to be selling books and has no credentials in the area. The reliability of the source of the historical conclusions has everything to do with whether the conclusions are any good. From what I have read from historical scholars is that the comparisons are exaggerated, or the comparisons are inaccurate, and they provide evidence to support these conclusions. This article mentions specifically that a strong case can be made for Mithra being reverse borrowing. I’ve read the evidence and I’m convinced that because the changes to Mithra show up in second century AD documents and not before, that the borrowing was in reverse. Mithra is not the only one.
I’m not suggesting that anyone accept my word for it. I mentioned in an earlier post, a book that was written by a recognized scholar on the subject.
I can say the books I use in my coven are not bought from Amazon or written by people wanting to make money. Many of the texts come from sources not published either. Most of the information is not even public knowledge. I know you trust your scholars but most are not an authority or even adequately informed on many ancient pagan texts. I am sure yours understand Christianity but anything even remotely close to AD is recent history.
Are you saying it follows that the myths were a reaction to a yearning but not Jesus? Fair enough.
I am saying that from the facts that people yearn for a savior, and have created savior myths, it does not follow that Jesus of Nazareth was not an historical person.
Well, what about the other characters who are pretty much identical to Jesus’s story? Do you think Jesus stands as a bright shinning star of realness among them? If yes, why.
Erlir–
I haven’t seen any others who are “pretty much identical.” For starters, the ones that are usually argued for took place in mythical time not in real historical time. While the Gospels are not biographies in the modern sense, they did make numerous connections to known historical facts. Do the narratives on any of your other characters do that? If they do, we might be comparing one historical figure to another.
There were many parallels in the lives of Johnny Cash and Ray Charles as seen in their recent movies. Southern origins, poor families, music, honkey-tonk bars, singer-songwriters, stardom, riches, drugs and alcohol problems, relationship problems, recovery, longevity, etc. ad nauseum. Should we conclude Johnny and Ray were the same person?