Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
15) That while there is no rational explanation for how a person can be 100% man and 100% God, and although ancient pagan superstitious people believed this can take place (Acts 14:11-12; 28:6), Jesus was incarnate God in the flesh.
49 comments:
...ancient people "believed" you mean?
Not only bad spelling but bad hermeneutics.
A Black Hole would fall under this paradigm yet we all believe this to be the case.
There is actually no proof that a person can be 99% human and 1% God.
"A Black Hole would fall under this paradigm yet we all believe this to be the case."
Analogy wobble. Black holes don't make the claim of being fully man / fully god, now do they? Your comparison fails on every count. And regardless of the yuck yuck on insignificant things like spelling, was there anything you could add as far as the actual point was concerned?
I'm sure that John's point was made with sufficient clarity. Rather deal with that.
Rev
Speaking of typo's - your entry of the 26th ("The right to worship")contains two typos on a quick skim. I have saved it if you want me to share it here?
Or is it petty to point out "bad spelling"?
Okay, typo fixed. If someone can explain how a person can be 100% God and 100% man with everything accounted for and nothing leftover let us all know. We're waiting....
Saying that a person can be 100% man, and also 100% God......is like saying a shape can be 100% circular, and 100% square at the same time?????????
@reverendphilipbrown,
While I believe you mean something different than you wrote, you accuse John of poor spelling and hermeneutics, and then you don't fully explain how a black hole is like Jesus being 100%mangod. I think I am totatlly missing the meaning of you message.I was hoping that you could elaborate.
Thanks,
Toby
I think Reverend Phil has answered the question.
Jesus was a black-hole.
I guess Christianity isn't debunked after all.
"If someone can explain how a person can be 100% God and 100% man with everything accounted for and nothing leftover let us all know. We're waiting...."
I'm giving the solution of the problem 110% of my concentration.
Dear Andre,
Slight of hand,
A Black Hole makes the claim of infinite density and infinite mass, explain that?
Phil.
Dear Toby,
I did not point out the bad spelling I just agreed with the previous post.
I think you will see the argument in the comment stream of what I really mean.
Phil.
I accept the notion of things being able to assume two fully seperated dualities in the same way I accept quantum superposition. If QS is true, then what's the question?
...what seems so illogical to you in Jesus not lacking anything from His divinity as well as not lacking anything from His humanity?
Does it seem also illogical to you that man is 100% soul and 100% body?
Lvka.
Does it seem illogical to you that there is absolutely no evidence that such a thing as a soul exists?
So I guess that settles it Jesus was a black hole measured along quantum time.
Thanks David and Rev!
Dear Chuck?
What?
@Rev. Brown
First, it's 'sleight' of hand since everyone is all about spelling and grammar these days.
Second, though I'm completely ignorant on the subject, a simple wiki [1] skim reveals that:
1) black holes have only three properties: mass, charge, and angular momemtum
- the mass inside a black hole may be calculated "using the gravitational analog of Gauss's law, the ADM mass, far away from the black hole."
- So, having the ability to calculate the mass necessitates that it is finite.
2) The discoverer of black holes with only mass and no charge/angular momentum was Karl Schwarzchild in 1915, and this type of black hole is called a singularity.
- Since the singularity is thought of as a point (no dimensions) it is only due to having a zero in the denominator of density (mass/volume) that we achieve an infinite result; this is a conceptual infinity due to the singularity (point volume), not an actual infinite mass.
3) Lastly, it appears that the inclusion of singularities in the theory of relativity has been seen as one of its failings and that a better way to look at it is with quantum gravity due especially to quantum theory's better applicability to extremely large densities.
- From wiki: "It is generally expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities."
- Also along these lines and confirming that relativity's singularity (point-mass) is just an approximation, we have this quote: "The description of black holes given by general relativity is known to be an approximation, and some scientists expect that quantum gravity effects will become significant near the vicinity of the event horizon."
In conclusion, black holes have:
- finite mass
- an infinite density in relativity only due to the necessity of a point-mass conceptualization (indeed, nothing we know of exists with literally zero volume)
--- it is not clear that anyone actually believes in a literal infinite density even though the theoretical workings allow it to be thought of it that way
- scientists have identified the above phenomenon as a limitation of relativity theory and it is thought that quantum gravity may solve this issue
In other words, it seems that your analogy fails pretty badly.
Even more so, note that the existence of an infinite density is seen as a limitation in need of correction, which inspires scientists to develop better theories to better describe reality.
Contradictions with reality in theology, however, lead to blatant assertions that "it's just true no matter what" -- how does that work? Indeed, the Catholic church will never retract the doctrine being discussed in this post since it was proclaimed infallibly by Pope Leo I in 449AD [2].
Just one last note: I get all the time that atheists are woefully prideful and make themselves to be god by demanding facts or thinking they know better. About as many times as I've heard this, however, I've also found that it actually appears that the scientifically minded and inquisitive who are humble, not suspecting their beliefs or wishes to be true without evidence, and that it is the religious who shut out opposing truth, become emotionally reactive when challenged, and are tied to dogma that by definition can never change no matter what.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility
Dear Rev
Please do Christianity a favour and reconsider the idea of blogging.
Thank you
The Pope
Dear Hendy,
Thanks for the spelling check.
So with your definition of black holes you think my analogy fails because we are waiting for scientists to understand black holes better because the maths makes it impossible to do so currently?
Your words were...
it is not clear that anyone actually believes in a literal infinite density even though the theoretical workings allow it to be thought of it that way
- scientists have identified the above phenomenon as a limitation of relativity theory and it is thought that quantum gravity may solve this issue.
So you admit that a Black Hole causes a theoretical impossibility even though the maths point to it to be that way. Hmm this is a science of the spaces argument, it makes sense of what we know but we have faith in science to correct our theoretical problems.
When applied to Jesus you assert a different set a circumstances, why cannot science come to the same conclusion about Jesus?
It does appear that you have proven my point, biased reasoning.
Thanks,
Phil.
Dear Andre,
If the comments are intellectually above you then please do not clog up the comment list with slander.
Phil.
Rev
I see you asserting Jesus' properties by offering the properties of black holes as proof. I must assume than that the probable confounding properties of black holes are explanation to Jesus' paradoxical properties and Jesus was a black hole. I mean since we can't examine Jesus all we are left is to examine his surrogate, the black hole, and understand Him to be it. I'm surprised you are confused, it is after all your argument.
Dear Chuck,
Please read the comments carefully as we have discussed before and leave your assumptions for your won blog.
Let me repeat it for you.
I said,
Not only bad spelling but bad hermeneutics.
A Black Hole would fall under this paradigm yet we all believe this to be the case.
Hermeneutics means the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation. The post called Jesus' divine/human nature in explainable? Therefore discardable. I simply pointed our that we cannot reasonably explain many things scientifically such as black holes but we don't discard them?
No where am I 'offering the properties of black holes as proof,' as you assert. You would do well to spend a little more time carefully reading the comments strands methinks.
;-)
Phil.
Phil
What do black holes have in common with people? How does a present occuring phenomenon (black holes) have the same investigative scope as a long dead jew? Has science determined the mysteries of black holes absolute or provisional truth (hint: see Hendy's comment)? Can further hypotheses be rendered and tested to determine the "how" of Jesus paradox? Where they ever performed? What is the epistemis similarity between a dead jew and black holes anyway?
Lots of typos in last post, sorry.
Rev
Let's leave aside the spelling issue which is embarrassing enough for your efforts, but silly in the bigger scheme of things. You started this off by (a) attacking John's hermeneutics and (b) making an absolutely inappropriate analogy.
Quite a few posts later you are no clearer or closer to explaining to us what it is that you tried to say. Now that can be us being dense, or you not having too much to say, or you not being able to make a good point clear enough for others to understand.
Let's try again, shall we?
There's a difference between not believing and not understanding.
"There's a difference between not believing and not understanding."
Exactly. That is why you have the non-believers and the non-understanders.
@ Andre.
Thanks again for the spelling lesson. Did you give Chuck and John one also?
As to my point.
John argues that if Christianity is to be true then we need a reasoned explanation of Jesus dual divinity and humanity.
My response, we accept thing all the time that we do not have a reasoned explanation for such as a black hole. Therefore John's point is superfluous.
I cannot be clearer than that :-)
Thank you for staying on topic.
Phil.
@ Chuck,
Please see post to Andre.
Phil.
P.S. Careful of Andre he thinks typo's make you unworthy of blogging. ;-)
Rev said,
"...I simply pointed our that we cannot reasonably explain many things scientifically such as black holes but we don't discard them? (as argument by analogy to defend against the notion of 'Jesus' divine/human nature being inexplicable)"
The objection is that when science has problems in its explanation of a phenomenon, it seeks better answers. Theology does nothing of the sort.
When a paradox or a literal impossibility appears in theology, the theologians invent apologetics to explain away the difficulty while at the same time leaving the problem as it was.
Science is self-correcting; religion is idiotic.
And BTW, the general theory of relativity predicted black holes long before any evidence was found confirming their existence.
As for Jesus, there may have been a guy named Jesus preaching in the hills around Jerusalem. But his presence was only "predicted" by shoe-horning him into prophecy by modifying and misinterpreting what was written earlier.
Rev
You started with the spelling lessons. I simply pointed out how silly that is, and how saturated with those errors your own blog is.
And, as I have posted on your own blog, those are not the reasons why I made my suggestion. I made my reasons clear, and you once again support my conclusion with your argument here.
You failed to make yourself clear, when you were called on that you shifted the goalposts and explained your intentions until there was some semblance of sensibility in it. Now we know that all you wanted to say was that we accept things we don't understand all the time. And this makes John's "paradigm" invalid how?
But the theist's strategy is as clear as it is old and tired. You start off with something Possible (Jesus and black holes) and from there, once that is conceded, you triumphantly blather on about how probable this may be. There is a world of difference between possibility and probability.
Also, by the Argument From Black Holes Allah, Zeus and Bob the Three-Headed Stand-up Comedian In The Sky are all possible. And probable.
Rev
See Andre's response to you.
(Your use of emoticons seems passive-aggressive BTW)
@ Rev. Brown
Re. spelling: it actually should have been called a 'homonym' mistake. My bad.
Re. black holes: I think you miss the point. Let's walk through it one more time:
- The only black holes considered to be infinite in density are those under the following conditions:
--- finite mass
--- described by the theory of relativity, which is known to have limitations in particular areas, especially in dealing with extremely large densities
--- is known to be a conceptual description rather than an accurate one
- How is this unclear and how does this compare to the case being discussed in which we have:
--- a declared fact which violates the the law of identity
--- no theory is being developed to better understand the principle; instead the only theory that will ever be maintained is the status quo
--- the theory is not seen as conceptual but literal; Jesus actually is 100% man and 100% god, not just theoretically so
- Lastly, regarding your point about it being possible even though theoretically impossible...
--- I wrote: "it is not clear that anyone actually believes in a literal infinite density even though the theoretical workings allow it to be thought of it that way."
--- You wrote: "So you admit that a Black Hole causes a theoretical impossibility even though the maths point to it to be that way."
This is backwards. It is possible to describe a black hole as a no-volume point in order to understand it as a theoretical concept. Scientists, however, know that this see an actual impossibility, and therefore look to quantum gravity to better describe these types of black holes.
- Case in point: Do me a favor and try to draw me a true point or line (no length/width/height for the former, length but no width/height for the latter). It is impossible in actuality. Yet these concepts work beautifully in mathematics for coordinates, force vectors in physics, and the like. We have a theoretical method to describe concepts and work with them but know them not to exist in tangible reality.
Both math and science are consistent in using theoretical methods to describe things but realizing that these theoretical descriptions stay... as theoretical and are not manifest in reality. Theology does not make this crucial distinction (Jesus is not 'conceptually' 100% man and god simultaneously) and therefore is not analogous.
I continue to hold that your analogy is fatally flawed and therefore fails.
@ GearHedEd
You said...
The objection is that when science has problems in its explanation of a phenomenon, it seeks better answers. Theology does nothing of the sort.
My Reply,
This is wrong. Where is your proof?
P.
Dear Andre,
You said
You started with the spelling lessons. I simply pointed out how silly that is, and how saturated with those errors your own blog is.
My Reply.
No I did not dandv did. Please look closer at the comment list. This shows your biases presumptions.
You Said,
And, as I have posted on your own blog, those are not the reasons why I made my suggestion. I made my reasons clear, and you once again support my conclusion with your argument here.
My Reply,
Again What are you talking about?
You said,
You failed to make yourself clear, when you were called on that you shifted the goalposts and explained your intentions until there was some semblance of sensibility in it. Now we know that all you wanted to say was that we accept things we don't understand all the time. And this makes John's "paradigm" invalid how?
My Reply,
No. I did not. You have not given any response to indicate what was unclear. Only you found it so?
You Said.
Now we know that all you wanted to say was that we accept things we don't understand all the time. And this makes John's "paradigm" invalid how?
My Reply,
Because he said the same thing. You are clearly out of you depth.
Phil.
@ Andre,
You said,
But the theist's strategy is as clear as it is old and tired. You start off with something Possible (Jesus and black holes) and from there, once that is
My Reply,
I did not start off with anything. John affirmed this.
You are really showing how uneducated you really are.
Phil
@ Chuck,
Yep as usuale us cannot answer me?
Phil.
@ Henday,
You said,
But the theist's strategy is as clear as it is old and tired. You start off with something Possible (Jesus and black holes) and from there, once that is
My Reply
No worries.
You say that
- The only black holes considered to be infinite in density are those under the following conditions:
--- finite mass
--- described by the theory of relativity, which is known to have limitations in particular areas, especially in dealing with extremely large densities
--- is known to be a conceptual description rather than an accurate one
My Reply,
this is my point?
What is the issue?
Phil.
It is clear no one can argue against me
Phil
Reverend Phil.
Your response regarding black holes is not accomplishing what you think it is.
There is alot more regarding the claims of christianity to think you have proven everyone wrong by pointing out the nature of black holes...lol...
@Rev. Brown
No idea what your last post was illustrating. Perhaps to illustrate it one more time...
- Black holes: we don't think they defy nature and at points were they conceptually defy nature (infinite density), we use the concept for what works... yet seek a better method for describing reality.
- Homoousia: Jesus' nature defies the known workings of the metaphysical property of identity. Press on, forward march nonetheless.
--- Don't limit it to a concept; make it be a real property of Jesus
--- Don't admit that it's not real and decide on a better explanation (50% man and 50% god or a human with an extra special indwelling...)
How in the world do you construe these two cases to be analogous in any fashion?
'No one is able to argue with you' because your argument is non-existent. It's just like an infinite density black hole. Theoretically, in your mind, your argument exists... but upon further investigation it's clear that it doesn't exist in reality.
The "Reverend" is truly a legend - in his own mind. Please Rev, visit here more often - you are hilarious. "No-one can argue with you".
John - we really need to get real smileys on here, the absence thereof make talking to the Rev less fun.
I'm starting to understand those recent figures on evangelical preachers a lot better :)
@ Rev,
I said theology does not self-correct.
It doesn't.
You arguing with me and everyone else in here in favor of retaining the incoherent propositions contained within the Bible is proof enough.
If you don't believe me, then why did it take the Vatican almost 400 years to forgive Galileo (remember that this was AFTER Apollo 11, mumerous missions to Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, General and Special Relativity, Darwin, Edwin Hubble, Georges LeMaitre (who worked FOR THE VATICAN, by the way!), Watson and Crick, Arno and Penzias and countless others had basically proved that the medieval concept of the universe the Vatican was trying to retain was just plain WRONG!).
The point being that the Vatican had its collective nose rubbed in reality so many times, that it would have looked (DID look!) ridiculous to everyone, including most educated Catholics.
And THAT'S the reason they apologized to Galileo. It wasn't something that they would have done if reality hadn't forced them to it.
Reality !! Pffft. Mere facts.
Rev
usual is not spelled with an e.
Post a Comment