Those that represent an incoherent world view I suggest should be excluded from serious consideration.
Wait! Are you, in a round about way, saying that your religion is the one and only true religion and all others, such as Hinduism, Daoism, Shintoism, Buddhism, etc are wrong? Is that being a bit exclusive and denying that god, any god, is a not a human concept? Isn’t such a view a bit conceted? (No, this won’t get you into trouble, for it seems a common view among Xians) Who says one’s concept has to be coherent? Who says that even Christianity, or any Abrahamic religion, has a coherent deity?
If miracles are commonplace, then what is the reservation about believing in the works of Jesus?
Here’s a question: Why miracles of Jesus? Why not that of Moses, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, Joshua, Budda (not that he really did miracles, but had some teachings and actions similar to Jesus), Krishna (who had sayings much like Jesus), Horus, etc?
I figured that people reading the thread would mostly likely be familiar with the miracles of Jesus. But my point works just as well with any other miraculous claim you’d care to mention.
Since I’m studying for a final that includes the Buddha, here’s a run down of compar(i)sons at my fingertips (From A Concise Introduction to World Religions: 1. he sits in the heavens where he waits until the earth needs a new buddha. (Yes, you could argue the last line makes it null and void if you want, but when the time is right, according to the Rapturist, Jesus sits up there until the time is right to return- paraphrasing. Not much different in my opinion.)
Can you provide some assurance that Maitreya Buddha is the same person as Shakyamuni Buddha or is it close enough for you even if Maitreya Buddha was not formerly incarnated as Shakyamuni Buddha?
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/Maitreya.htm
Comparing his birth 2. The night he was a born, a bright light illuminated the world, marking the holy event. 3. Both are conceived miraculously without sexual intercourse. (Here again it mentions the king had taken a vow of celibacy). 4. Both infants are born outside a house- Buddha in a grove and Jesus in a stable. 5. I’ve mentioned the bright light already, but they also both had sages foretell the infants’ future greatness. 6. In both cases the births are announced by angels.
I don’t see the parallel for #2. What Bible text indicates bright light illuminating the world the night Jesus was born?
For #3 I’d like to see the vow of celibacy in the primary source.
Born outside a house is a thin parallel. The reasons behind the circumstances of birth appear quite different (Maya drawn to the grove, Mary forced by inability to find lodging to use the stable). The meaning of the location is likewise quite different (one a result of privilege, one the result of want).
What sages foretell the greatness of Jesus to fulfill that parallel?
Likewise, what portion of the primary text (for the Buddha) relates the annunciation by angels?
Childhood into adulthood:
1. Few events are recorded (no big deal really) 2. The impresses his first teacher with his knowledge, Jesus impresses the rabbi at the temple with his knowledge/wisdom 3. When he’s 30 he begins a journey, which leads him to eventually gain disciples and teaching others. 4. He sits under a bodhi tree (wilderness for Jesus) Mara, the lord of death, plays a role not unlike that of Satan in Christianity. Mara attempts to tempt the Bodhisattva (eventually Buddha) to give up his mission. Mara tempts him with aspects of what the Christians refer to as sins, and finally offers to grant him any worldly wish. Doesn’t work of course. This continues for a month (Jesus’s 30 days and 30 nights) until the Bodhisattva works a miracle: the earthquake drives Mara away. 5. there was a night with three watches (Jesus in the Garden) and the third was just before dawn where he reaches total insight (Jesus reached insight before the night was over too).
1. Well, at least we know Buddha had lots of toys.
2. We should hardly be surprised if Buddha was a precocious student, given that he made a speech right after he exited the womb. Talking newborns come with an expectation or rapid mental development. The text I linked suggests that Buddha learned everything that he was supposed to learn in a period of a few days. I think this is a good example of oversimplifying the comparison to emphasize the similarity.
3. What journey did Jesus undertake in order to win disciples?
4. The primary parallel for Jesus is the temptation of Adam and Eve. And there were trees in the Garden of Eden, so perhaps that was borrowed from Buddhism. And I am skeptical that the temptations offered by Mara fairly parallel those to which Jesus was subjected. Shall we examine those? Oh, and what is the source for the duration of Buddha’s temptation?
The oldest accounts describe the Awakening in sober technical terms, most often by reference to the successive practice of the four dhyanas culminating in the knowledge of suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation-what come to be known as the “Four Noble Truths.” However, perhaps because they do not exactly make for a good story, the later legend of the Buddha recounts the Awakening through the description of the Bodhisattva’s encounter with demon Mara. This is a story rather more vivid and immediately accessible than the abstract concepts of Buddhist meditation theory. http://orias.berkeley.edu/visuals/buddha/life.html
I wonder how late the later legend, and why it would be called a later legend given the propensity of the Hindus to memorize things with the greatest precision?
OK you are getting the idea here and probably will brush it off, but be that as it may, my questions still stand: Why not one of the other greats of lore? Why Jesus, esp when many of the stories have the same outline/template?
Well, in the context you entered in this thread it doesn’t really matter which miracles we’re talking about.
In the context you appear to have introduced, the account of Jesus is preferable because of textual consistency and a plausible historical context (not to exclude other possibilities).
Many thanks, faithlessgod. I’m not terribly sure I follow the argument though. If the results are the same, then the interpretation doesn’t matter, but part of the interpretation we have “uncaused”? How then would it matter what interpretation is used? Because there are examples where we can say “uncaused” is not needed, does this tell us we can show the “uncaused” is not a reality?
Physicists prefer different interpretations as a methodological guide to help them to new insights, experiments and hopefully discoveries. and they like, everyone else, wants to know what it is all about. But they are specifically interpretations of QM and QM works regardless of the interpretation. Some interpretations are more radical and controversial than others and could lead to differing results but this has not happened yet and until or if they ever do, those will remain controversial. Homeopaths - to the degree they are seeking a scientific explanation of their practice - rely on such controversial interpretations, parapsychologists too...
You suddenly reminded me of something that Dawkins mentions in his book, The God Delusion. Unfortunately (or wisely) he only touches on QM with a little more than one page. There’s the “precise predictions”, “assumptions” and the “interpretation” - but spares the reader from in depth mind bending. Lewis Vaughen and Austin Dacey touch on the “uncaused” in the book, The Case for Humanism (I recommend that little bit - I’d be curious to know your thoughts on what they propose).
But - Dawkins throws in this great line in TGD; “The biologist Lewis Wolpert believes that the queerness of modern physics is just the tip of the iceberg. Science in general, as opposed to technology, does violence to common sense.”
I am starting to think that you don’t have much to defend for how dishonest and deliberately misconstruing you have been. Otherwhise, you’d just address the basic kindergarten questions you said you would.
Mriana eventually corrected you regarding one of your presuppositions (that Mary Magdalene was depicted as a prostitute) after I originally questioned your claim by inquiring as to its source (which book was I supposed to read to confirm it).
and if you are so good at what you claim you are at, you’d also care to read what my reply was to Mriana. You keep on hitting and missing, you might want to go to the local range and do some practicing because at this point you might as well be blind for how bad you are.
Your assertion regarding the mother of Jesus likewise contained a questionable premise (that “we” know the purpose of women in terms of the Bible). I’ve addressed that issue via Proverbs 31, and your response to that has appeared incoherent. It makes no sense, for example, for the male-dominated society to raise up an ideal that conflicts with what they see as the proper role of women.
And that’s about all I have to say about that.
Pro-joke 31 doesn’t address anything, it states an ideal (beside preaching that people drink themselves to death among other things), you need to look up the difference between an ideal and a current actual condition pal. These are 2 completely different things. Also, instead of throwing proportionately mediocre accusations to the left and to the right, how about addressing your intelectual dishonesty for a change? what’s that verse? something along the lines of “get your act together before you address other’s”? and what happened to my question in regard to your pro-joke 31? this is the 3rd time now I am asking and still no answer. I take it since you persist in not addressing it, you don’t have any answers and that makes you the loser in the contest since that’s what you sadly seem to think this is.
Comparing his birth 2. The night he was a born, a bright light illuminated the world, marking the holy event. 3. Both are conceived miraculously without sexual intercourse. (Here again it mentions the king had taken a vow of celibacy). 4. Both infants are born outside a house- Buddha in a grove and Jesus in a stable. 5. I’ve mentioned the bright light already, but they also both had sages foretell the infants’ future greatness. 6. In both cases the births are announced by angels.
I don’t see the parallel for #2. What Bible text indicates bright light illuminating the world the night Jesus was born?
The bright light is a star in both of them.
For #3 I’d like to see the vow of celibacy in the primary source.
Born outside a house is a thin parallel. The reasons behind the circumstances of birth appear quite different (Maya drawn to the grove, Mary forced by inability to find lodging to use the stable). The meaning of the location is likewise quite different (one a result of privilege, one the result of want).
What sages foretell the greatness of Jesus to fulfill that parallel?
Likewise, what portion of the primary text (for the Buddha) relates the annunciation by angels?
Why is so many Xians like to deny the obvious? Again, it is in The Acts of the Buddha.
Childhood into adulthood:
1. Few events are recorded (no big deal really) 2. The impresses his first teacher with his knowledge, Jesus impresses the rabbi at the temple with his knowledge/wisdom 3. When he’s 30 he begins a journey, which leads him to eventually gain disciples and teaching others. 4. He sits under a bodhi tree (wilderness for Jesus) Mara, the lord of death, plays a role not unlike that of Satan in Christianity. Mara attempts to tempt the Bodhisattva (eventually Buddha) to give up his mission. Mara tempts him with aspects of what the Christians refer to as sins, and finally offers to grant him any worldly wish. Doesn’t work of course. This continues for a month (Jesus’s 30 days and 30 nights) until the Bodhisattva works a miracle: the earthquake drives Mara away. 5. there was a night with three watches (Jesus in the Garden) and the third was just before dawn where he reaches total insight (Jesus reached insight before the night was over too).
1. Well, at least we know Buddha had lots of toys.
2. We should hardly be surprised if Buddha was a precocious student, given that he made a speech right after he exited the womb. Talking newborns come with an expectation or rapid mental development. The text I linked suggests that Buddha learned everything that he was supposed to learn in a period of a few days. I think this is a good example of oversimplifying the comparison to emphasize the similarity.
3. What journey did Jesus undertake in order to win disciples?
4. The primary parallel for Jesus is the temptation of Adam and Eve. And there were trees in the Garden of Eden, so perhaps that was borrowed from Buddhism. And I am skeptical that the temptations offered by Mara fairly parallel those to which Jesus was subjected. Shall we examine those? Oh, and what is the source for the duration of Buddha’s temptation?
Your logical ceases to amaze me. Even so, in answer to your #3 question, he was travelling on foot, just as the Buddha was, and even on a donkey, when he was travelling. Travel is very frequent in the Gospels. He didn’t stay in one place as he gained his 12 disciples.
I wonder how late the later legend, and why it would be called a later legend given the propensity of the Hindus to memorize things with the greatest precision?
Sigh. Verse 36 is the first. Verse 40 would be the second, for he tells them a second time to watch and the third would be where he came back and found them asleep. Of course, this depends on your definition of a watch, but he returns to them three times. If you see it as a changing of the guards, then in both case (the Buddha and Jesus) you are mistaken, for there is no changing of the guards in either senerio.
Well, in the context you entered in this thread it doesn’t really matter which miracles we’re talking about.
In the context you appear to have introduced, the account of Jesus is preferable because of textual consistency and a plausible historical context (not to exclude other possibilities).
Actually, it is not, because it is the same template/outline that the myths are created and neither one are historical accounts or even eyewitness accounts.
I am starting to think that you don’t have much to defend for how dishonest and deliberately misconstruing you have been. Otherwhise, you’d just address the basic kindergarten questions you said you would.
I hate to second your statement, Daisy, but I would be lying if I said I didn’t agree.
If we grant that there is a god, for the purposes of this debate, we note that anthropologists to date have identified over 10000 gods. This means your prior probability of having the correct god is 0.0001, and this is conservative, anthropologists are likely to discover more gods rather than less and many more have been lost in time. Now what evidence can you produce that can increase the a posteriori probability over all other 9.999+ gods? That is if your choice of god is correct, what evidence would increase this probability - that is it cannot be evidence that could also be used to argue for any other god. This rules out revelation, miracles, sacred scripture, authority, sensus divinitus, argumentum ad populaum and so on. If you cannot show this then the odds that you have the right god are as close to zero (0.0001) as makes no difference.
I’ve touched on this answer earlier in the thread. Gods typically do not stand in isolation. They are attached to a world view. Gods associated with the more coherent world views are more likely correct than those that are not, unless the law of non-contradiction is not a dependable guide to truth. So, you group notions of god according to the world view represented. Those that represent an incoherent world view I suggest should be excluded from serious consideration.
An interesting reply. What you are suggesting is another means of increasing the a posteriori probability of your god versus others. That is the way the other are removed from consideration. Well AFAIK the most coherent worldview associated with a god, I am being serious here, is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You will presumably disagree. Indeed I conjecture tha anyone defending their god/world view over other would likely say theirs is more coherent than the opposition. So again the question becomes how you can ratoinally and/or empirically show how these associated world views - to the degree we know them - are coherent based on a standard not dependent on a belief in that god - which would be question begging.
So the prior is still 0.0001, show how does your coherent argument improve your god’s a posteriori odds.
Bryan - 09 May 2008 10:19 AM
If miracles were commonplace - and they are not, if they exist at all - they are often claimed by different sects and religions (indeed Benjamin Creme claims that all miracles are the work of the Maitreya) - and others dismissed as the works of the devil or not miracles at all by other theists, so how could you make this argument work?
What argument do you think I’m making, that making it work seems like a difficult proposition to you?
Well you appeared to be making an argument using miracles to support your god. If you are not making such an argument on this why were you saying what you were saying about the works of Jesus? If you were not and cannot why argue about miracles at all?
.... Gods associated with the more coherent world views are more likely correct [i.e., exist] than those that are not...... Those [gods] that represent an incoherent world view I suggest should be excluded from serious consideration.
By “coherence” you mean self-consistent? Isn’t it more consistent to conclude that all 10,000 religions are superstitious nonsense than to conclude the ratio is 1:9999? Should we ignore the parts of the Old Testament which are inconsistent with Jesus’ message?
richarddawkins.net -
“The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also”
Mark Twain
The ‘uncaused’ as we’ve discussed it is not a problem for philosophical naturalism.
Whether quantum states are caused or uncaused is really down to the quantum interpretation you chose. The interpretation does not matter since the results are the same. Arguably, off the top of my head, the consistent histories, many worlds, many worlds/decoherence, Bohm (hidden variables) all do not need uncaused states. Hence regalrdless of any other weakness in bryna’s argument it fails relying on referential opacity - choosing an interpretation that requires “uncaused” states
Nobody’s saying that “everything” is random. I’m saying that when a naturalist accepts events as “causeless” (such as random and causeless quantum particle formation) it means that the naturalist is accepting causeless events as part of his worldview--a worldview that sets as its predicate the discovery of causes, at least historically speaking.
Simply put, quantum mechanics is not a problem for naturalism being quite consistent with the methodological principles, indeed QM is one of the best examples of naturalism - it is incredibly unlikely we could have found it without naturalism - producing more accurate predictions than just about anything else.
It doesn’t matter how in sync with methodological principles it is if the phenomenon ends up contradicting the world view of philosophical naturalism. And philosophical naturalism is not the same thing as methodological naturalism (there’s a hint of equivocal language in faithlessgod’s response: “not a problem for naturalism being quite consistent with methodological principles").
In the gospels, the star attracts the attention of the wise men. There is nothing in the gospels suggesting that the same star created bright light on the night of Jesus’ birth. It was bright enough for the wise men to follow it, but nothing is mentioned about any unusual degree of illumination.
Why is so many Xians like to deny the obvious?
okfyts.
Again, it is in The Acts of the Buddha.
You have a copy of the text, right? Could you quote the relevant passage and provide the page number? My question about the sages concerns the gospels, and naming the entire text does not answer for me what portion of the primary text says what is claimed of it.
Your logical ceases to amaze me.
Your criticism is lacking in specifics.
Even so, in answer to your #3 question, he was travelling on foot, just as the Buddha was, and even on a donkey, when he was travelling. Travel is very frequent in the Gospels. He didn’t stay in one place as he gained his 12 disciples.
Compare the widest point of Jesus’ supposed travels with just the distance between Delhi and Calcutta. If Jesus traveled to win his disciples then so would anybody without his own church building or television program. Many of us go further than that to get to work each day.
Sigh. Verse 36 is the first. Verse 40 would be the second, for he tells them a second time to watch and the third would be where he came back and found them asleep. Of course, this depends on your definition of a watch, but he returns to them three times. If you see it as a changing of the guards, then in both case (the Buddha and Jesus) you are mistaken, for there is no changing of the guards in either s(c)en(a)rio.
So the answer is “yes” we are to infer the three watches from the report of Jesus waking the disciples three times. I’ll look up the Buddhist text myself, I suppose.
Jewish culture likewise divided the night into watches (three, perhaps four), but the passages concerning Jesus at Gethsemane make no mention of them. That part is apparently read into the text by those wishing to establish parallels.
Well, in the context you entered in this thread it doesn’t really matter which miracles we’re talking about.
In the context you appear to have introduced, the account of Jesus is preferable because of textual consistency and a plausible historical context (not to exclude other possibilities).
Actually, it is not, because it is the same template/outline that the myths are created and neither one are historical accounts or even eyewitness accounts.
That doesn’t follow. Even if you deny the historicity of the accounts, the historical context is plausible. There is a definite time during which Jesus is supposed to have lived, and the details in the gospel accounts strongly support that historical context. In contrast, the life of the Buddha remains exceptionally difficult to pin down to a given time period.
The Cambridge and Oxford histories of India accept 483 B.C as the date of Buddha’s nirvana. But, William Jones, on the basis of Chinese and Tibetan records infers that Buddha lived in the 11th century B.C.
Historian Fleet, who makes a study of ‘Rajatarangini’, thinks that Buddha lived in the 17th century B.C. Chinese monk Fa-Hien puts Buddha’s Nirvana at 1050 B.C. These contradictory theories may confuse one altogether.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=10,2190,0,0,1,0
That’s over a thousand years of variance, if anyone is counting. There is no comparable confusion regarding the position of Jesus in history.
Mriana, if it is truly too much of a burden for you to provide primary source material then just be patient and I will take care of that end of things (I’ll refrain from further requests that you provide primary source material).
I am starting to think that you don’t have much to defend for how dishonest and deliberately misconstruing you have been.
I think I’m being honest about the fact that you made two assertions regarding two different Marys, and I provided a URL so that anyone can check it out for themselves. Meanwhile you’re claiming that you asked a question about Mary that I never answered and I still can’t figure out what question you think you asked. I think that your latter claim is non-factual.
Otherwhise, you’d just address the basic kindergarten questions you said you would.
And what questions did I say I would answer?
Mriana eventually corrected you regarding one of your presuppositions (that Mary Magdalene was depicted as a prostitute) after I originally questioned your claim by inquiring as to its source (which book was I supposed to read to confirm it).
and if you are so good at what you claim you are at, you’d also care to read what my reply was to Mriana.
What have I claimed I’m good at? I don’t recollect that, either. Is my memory just very bad, or could you be mistaken in thinking I claimed I was good at something?
I should read your reply to Mriana?
Daisy:
mary magdalene is depicted in the bible as a prostitu(t)e,
[...]
Daisy:
Mriana, Bryan didn’t say that I did. He inquired where I get that from and I pointed to the bible since that is what a christian (as do the muslim with coran/ hadith and jews with Ot/talmud) base any of their assertions on since according them, it is the word of god. I used to be there but not on everything, since some did perfectly make sense to me and some might as well equate with cat’s poop. As to Mary Magdalene, I don’t believe for a sec that she is a prostitute, I pointed to that as an example arguing that whenever there was a woman somewhere in the christian biblical land, it just so happened to be that she is ( I let you fill in the blank) just like the muslims and jews, they do this to discredit women, degrade and patronize them in any way they possibly can. It’s in this spirit that I pointed out to the above.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/36830/
Looks to me as though you never addressed the issue Mriana called you on. You said it was in the Bible. Mriana correctly said it wasn’t. Then you write that you’re just answering that way because people who believe the Bible think a certain way (I can’t say I’m certain about what you were trying to say, however). Your reply does not seem relevant to the issue that I pointed out and that Mriana pursued with you.
You keep on hitting and missing, you might want to go to the local range and do some practicing because at this point you might as well be blind for how bad you are.
An interesting reply. What you are suggesting is another means of increasing the a posteriori probability of your god versus others. That is the way the other are removed from consideration.
Correct.
Well AFAIK the most coherent worldview associated with a god, I am being serious here, is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You will presumably disagree.
Indeed I conjecture tha(t) anyone defending their god/world view over other would likely say theirs is more coherent than the opposition. So again the question becomes how you can rat(io)nally and/or empirically show how these associated world views - to the degree we know them - are coherent based on a standard not dependent on a belief in that god - which would be question begging.
I’ve already mentioned the law of non-contradiction. Contradictions are amenable to human reasoning.
So the prior is still 0.0001, show how does your coherent argument improve your god’s a posteriori odds.
It eliminates one or more of the other possibilities. Are you looking for specific numbers, like “contradictions have now been located in 33,963.7 proposed religions”? The latter question seems intended to require a long and detailed answer, the sort of question I think I am reasonable to pass up. The short answer seems self-evident, at least to me.
What argument do you think I’m making, that making it work seems like a difficult proposition to you?
Well you appeared to be making an argument using miracles to support your god. If you are not making such an argument on this why were you saying what you were saying about the works of Jesus?
To show a problem of coherency between accepting miracles as commonplace while also rejecting them.
If you were not and cannot why argue about miracles at all?
I’m not sure why “cannot” comes into it given the “were not.”
The argument over miracles concerns the coherency of metaphysical naturalism. In other posts you have appeared to understand that.
And I am skeptical that the temptations offered by Mara fairly parallel those to which Jesus was subjected. Shall we examine those? Oh, and what is the source for the duration of Buddha’s temptation?
