Left Behind.

[Student of Trinity]

The word 'rapture' is indeed derived from Latin, but Rapture is not an ancient doctrine. The earliest hints of it — mentioned in a couple of books — were apparently in the late 1700's. It got a few more mentions in the early 19th century, but only by the late 19th century had it gotten enough press of any kind to amount to a school of thought. And it was a very small school of thought until around the 1950's.

 

This is not the place to argue theology, but I think even Rapture believers have to concede that the Scriptural warrant for this doctrine is on the more obscure side, and needs a fair amount of inference and extrapolation.

 

I'm afraid that's probably a reason not to go into too much detailed discussion about it here, actually. Note only is there danger of inflammation, but the issues are apt to get technical quickly, leaving little that would be of interest to the general community here. I don't mean to shut off all discussion of the idea, just to suggest that we keep it light.

[Arch-Mage Solberg]

I did not mean to infer that the teaching of the rapture dated back to St Jerome. I was merely stating where the word was coming from.

I'm not trying to argue theology. I just wanted to put the information about the Rapture out there.

 

Post #516

[Ceiling Durkheim]

I don't mean to scoff. I certainly don't agree with the aforementioned belief system, but I have no desire to trivialize it, either. I recognize that all belief systems are ultimately based on unverifiable postulates. I also don't think we should trivialize or scoff at beliefs like Miller or Camping's, though I disagree with them even more strongly than with mainstream dispensationalism. I think active debate on the merits of these belief systems (both biblical and empirical) is healthy and valuable, but SoT's probably right that this isn't the place for it.

[Sudanna]

. . . This community loves technical things, SoT.

[Student of Trinity]

Well, then, cry havoc and let slip the dogs of hermeneutics, I guess, if you want. Don't say I didn't warn you!

[Dantius]

Yeah, that's ironic coming from a physics professor. Talking about advanced mathand science here seems to get a positive response from enough members here to merit continued discussion, and discussions on higher-level theology tend not to degenerate into "OMG ATHEISTS R HITLER" esque flamewars in my experience.

[Randomizer]

The Rapture has been recalculated to October 21, 2011.

 

In before the Apocalypse.

 

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Yeah, that's ironic coming from a physics professor. Talking about advanced mathand science here seems to get a positive response from enough members here to merit continued discussion, and discussions on higher-level theology tend not to degenerate into "OMG ATHEISTS R HITLER" esque flamewars in my experience.

It's all fun and games until Jeff sees what goes on here and goes, "I'm not paying for this" and locks the topic.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

You scoff at us when we say that we have faith in what we believe in.
What do you believe in? Do you believe that the entire universe (of its own accord) blasted into existence by the Big Bang? Do you believe that we are living in a multiverse instead of a universe. No matter how you think the universe came to be, you have to take it on faith.

First, there's a level of expertise involved. Theology is an academic discipline, and the Bible has been exhaustively combed over over the last two thousand years. That's not to say that there's no new insight there, of course, but Camping's claims fly in the face of everyone else's understanding of the Bible. Eventually, unique claims are no different from if I were to suddenly claim divine insight. It's possible, but it's not very plausible.

There aren't great scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe. The big problem is that it's not observable or repeatable in a lab. What data can be gathered is difficult and, well, very old. So figuring out what happened is hard, and yes, eventually it boils down to believing in very complicated math and high energy physics that might have happened but might be fundamentally misunderstood.

Atheism isn't really about understanding the origin of the universe, though. It's quite possible to go about life without any understanding of that at all. If religion is about believing something that is unproven, atheism is about putting the burden of proof on god(s) and not believing until given reason to do otherwise. Many atheists will admit the possible existence of God and reject it given the lack of any evidence for his existence. The Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster are popular parodies of this problem of faith without evidence.

—Alorael, who has seen plenty of dogmatic Christians and atheists butting heads in person and over the internet. He'd say that the more reasonable problem is usually comes up because while atheists need not care what others believe, many religions do require spreading and enforcing beliefs. American politics are currently significantly influenced by Christian values that in some cases seem senseless to non-Christians, and having faith isn't a good justification to someone who doesn't share that faith.

[Venom]

Originally Posted By: Alorael

He'd say that the more reasonable problem is usually comes up because while atheists need not care what others believe, many religions do require spreading and enforcing beliefs.

A. Terrible grammar.

B. Load of garbage. Atheists most certainly do care about what others believe. If they didn't there would be no need to argue. They care just as much as religious people do. It is just much easier to sit back, smile, and smugly say "Prove it" than to actually make an effort to engage in debate. It makes a perfect fallback. Requires no work, no thought, no effort.

[pipat3]

Die, spambot, die!

[Sudanna]

Atheists need not. Need not. Depending on your religion, you might be required to.

 

Also, argument is also useful as a form of catharsis, self-exploration, refining your own ideas, learning more about a specific person, informing yourself of other viewpoints, pure intellectual exercise, or just having fun with it. Those are the reasons I argue, especially about religion. Never because I expect or want to "convert" people, or care what they think. Sometimes, it's about things they do, but that's extremely rare.

 

Both sides can take refuge in insufferable smugness. It's just as easy for a religious person to demand proof as an atheist.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

In before the Apocalypse.

if you're trying to encourage me to post all up in here you should make bad posts, not good ones

you catch more flies with carrion, as they say

[Student of Trinity]

I love the Flying Spaghetti Monster as much as anyone, but as I've suddenly grown very fond of saying, Ockham's Razor has no handle. It cuts everyone.

 

So maybe a parody on the other foot could be what I think could be called anaurionism: a refusal to believe in tomorrow. Because there is no evidence at all that tomorrow will exist, and in the absence of evidence, it's simpler to assume that it won't.

 

The fact that yesterday's tomorrow did in fact exist is no evidence that today's tomorrow will. So anaurionism is not the refusal to believe in the existence of any one particular date. It is in a sense a perpetually self-revising belief system — ecclesia semper reformanda — but it revises itself in a very simple way. On any given day, an anaurionist refuses to believe in all future days.

 

Anaurionism could be built into something. It's got catchy slogans: "tomorrow never comes", for instance. And, rather better than Pastafarianism, it implies a non-trivial moral premise: "Live each day as though it's your last. Because it is."

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

So maybe a parody on the other foot could be what I think could be called anaurionism: a refusal to believe in tomorrow. Because there is no evidence at all that tomorrow will exist, and in the absence of evidence, it's simpler to assume that it won't.

the problem of induction is only funny until somebody loses an eye

no, seriously, watch out. black swans are very aggressive birds.

one could, of course, consistently practice anti-induction: assuming that what is most likely to happen is what has been observed least often in similar situations in the past. when questioned about why one used such an odd epistemic practice, one could point out: "well, it's never worked before!"

[Dintiradan]

I'd love to see a meeting between an Anaurionist and a Last Thursdayist.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

What s/he said. There's no Evangelical denomination* of atheism. While there are certainly atheism advocacy organizations, and vocal atheists (the Four Horsemen come immediately to mind), there aren't tens of millions of atheists called upon to witness their faith (or lack thereof) by their creed.

 

*Evangelical Christianity isn't a denomination, per se, but the term's close enough for a non-technical discussion.

[Lilith]

i guess there was that dumb Project Blasphemy thing a while back but i don't think an internet fad actually counts as an organisation

[Student of Trinity]

[plug]There's a site for Digital Blasphemy, but what it actually is is this guy's digital art. Landscapes, scenic views, sort of thing. I like them, but so far never quite enough to buy a membership. He gives some nice freebies, though. His site name is somehow to do with the idea that he's a mere mortal daring to create stuff, or something like that.[/plug]

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Venom

Originally Posted By: Alorael

He'd say that the more reasonable problem is usually comes up because while atheists need not care what others believe, many religions do require spreading and enforcing beliefs.

A. Terrible grammar.

I don't believe in grammar.

Quote:

B. Load of garbage. Atheists most certainly do care about what others believe. If they didn't there would be no need to argue. They care just as much as religious people do. It is just much easier to sit back, smile, and smugly say "Prove it" than to actually make an effort to engage in debate. It makes a perfect fallback. Requires no work, no thought, no effort.

Atheists don't have to care. Atheists also don't have to argue. They can just be silently smug about the fact that they're not going to waste time on silly rituals when oblivion is inevitably approaching and every moment is too precious to squander on foolishness like arguing on the internet.

—Alorael, who is willing to accept the problem of induction. Atheism doesn't explicitly require belief in anything (that's the point!), but it especially doesn't require belief in tomorrow. Doctrinal disputes between intelligent tomorrowists and atheanaurionists would be pretty good.

[Rowen]

Being an Atheist doesn't sound all that exciting.

[Ephesos]

Originally Posted By: Rowen

Being an Atheist doesn't sound all that exciting.

It's cool, actually. You get invited to such awesome parties, and then there's the secret handshake, and the jewel-encrusted decoder rings, and you get to help with the secret conspiracy to undermine --- wait no nevermind I meant kittens I said kittens right we totally work with rescue kittens.

As for this apocalypse nonsense, as a resident of Missouri, it almost seems like that one guy was right, he just got the mechanism wrong. So... many... tornadoes. I am incredibly thankful that the major storms rarely make it to St. Louis before veering away.

[Arch-Mage Solberg]

Originally Posted By: Applied Deconstruction

Atheism doesn't explicitly require belief in anything (that's the point!),

It's all about choice isn't it? You either choose to believe in something or to not believe in something. Either way faith has to be present. If you believe in God, you have faith that God exists. If you don't believe in God, wouldn't you have some sort of measure of faith that He doesn't exist?
I'm not at all any good when it comes to debates or all of that stuff. I just ask some questions and try to answer others questions as best I can.
Also, this guy (whatever his name is) retooled his calculations and came up with the date of 10/21/11. I wonder what he will say when his latest 'prediction' falls through.

Post #517

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

It's all about choice isn't it? You either choose to believe in something or to not believe in something. Either way faith has to be present. If you believe in God, you have faith that God exists. If you don't believe in God, wouldn't you have some sort of measure of faith that He doesn't exist?

i kind of hate using this argument, but: do you have faith that there isn't a teapot in orbit around the earth, or do you just not believe that there is one because you see no particular reason to believe it

[Arch-Mage Solberg]

That's just it isn't it. That is how some or even most Athiests view us Christians. When we say that we believe in God but yet can not provide scientifically sound proof of our beliefs, they veiw us as totally insane. But when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, all of the evidence shows that something brought the universe together. All of this just couldn't have come together by chance. Cause and effect. I believe that God is the Great First Cause. It's like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving behind not a huge mess but reassembled appliances, cars and stuff. That's just how I see it.

 

Post #520

[Sudanna]

What's wrong with chance?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

That's just it isn't it. That is how some or even most Athiests view us Christians. When we say that we believe in God but yet can not provide scientifically sound proof of our beliefs, they veiw us as totally insane. But when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, all of the evidence shows that something brought the universe together. All of this just couldn't have come together by chance. Cause and effect. I believe that God is the Great First Cause.

even if one grants that for the sake of argument, there's a pretty big gap between the "philosophers' God" and the God of any particular religion

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

That's just it isn't it. That is how some or even most Athiests view us Christians. When we say that we believe in God but yet can not provide scientifically sound proof of our beliefs, they veiw us as totally insane. But when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, all of the evidence shows that something brought the universe together. All of this just couldn't have come together by chance. Cause and effect. I believe that God is the Great First Cause. It's like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving behind not a huge mess but reassembled appliances, cars and stuff. That's just how I see it.

Post #520

Being Christian myself, I've seen things people that want go the "scientific" way can't exactly explain. But on some things I can meet half way. Although I have seen some absolute crap reasons on both sides that try to explain things that make no sence what-so-ever.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

But when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, all of the evidence shows that something brought the universe together. All of this just couldn't have come together by chance. Cause and effect. I believe that God is the Great First Cause. It's like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving behind not a huge mess but reassembled appliances, cars and stuff. That's just how I see it.

Post #520

But that's the fallacy of your argument. We only get to debate this because by chance we are here. If the universe had acted a little differently than the unintelligent life here wouldn't be around to contend about how it came to be. Say because we exist there must be an intelligent design creator doesn't prove anything.

Now when we can examine planets around other stars and see if life exists there then we will have a better idea about how likely we are.

[Jerakeen]

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

It's all about choice isn't it? You either choose to believe in something or to not believe in something. Either way faith has to be present. If you believe in God, you have faith that God exists. If you don't believe in God, wouldn't you have some sort of measure of faith that He doesn't exist?

No. God could exist; I just don't think it's very likely.

Evidently some people have the ability to choose to believe, but for me it's not a choice--it's just how things are.

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: The Turtle Moves

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

It's all about choice isn't it? You either choose to believe in something or to not believe in something. Either way faith has to be present. If you believe in God, you have faith that God exists. If you don't believe in God, wouldn't you have some sort of measure of faith that He doesn't exist?

No. God could exist; I just don't think it's very likely.

Evidently some people have the ability to choose to believe, but for me it's not a choice--it's just how things are.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it took many, many years until someone called Isaac to believe in something called gravity. It took a few more years for him to "prove" such a thing.

[Jerakeen]

The beauty of gravity is that it works whether you believe in it or not.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

Correct me if I'm wrong but it took many, many years until someone called Isaac to believe in something called gravity. It took a few more years for him to "prove" such a thing.

Gravity existed it just wasn't defined mathematically until Newton.

There was plenty of empirical work related to it. That guy Galileo who kept dropping things out of the leaning tower in Pisa is an example.

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: The Turtle Moves

The beauty of gravity is that it works whether you believe in it or not.

People that "believe in God" could argue the same thing. My point being.

[Sudanna]

Well, then what's the big deal about believing?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

There was plenty of empirical work related to it. That guy Galileo who kept dropping things out of the leaning tower in Pisa is an example.

in reality galileo's work on gravity probably involved rolling objects down slopes, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good anecdote

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good anecdote

you can also say that about religion and the Bible.

[Student of Trinity]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

there's a pretty big gap between the "philosophers' God" and the God of any particular religion

Not necessarily. 'Any particular religion' covers a huge range, and so does 'philosophers' God'. There are many religious believers, in all faiths I would say, whose interpretations of their religions are pretty philosophical. And it's not that those folks are simply a few crypto-atheists hiding in the crowds of fanatics. On the contrary, I think there's a full continuum, and that only a small proportion of religious believers are really orbiting-teapot types who subscribe firmly to a large number of arbitrary propositions.

Dawkins's teapot sounds like a straw man to me, though I've never read his own argument about it. Whether or not God exists does not seem to me at all like the question of whether there's a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. More like the question whether we are all computer simulations running on some alien desktop. It involves comparing radically different perspectives on absolutely everything, not assessing the plausibility of astonishing coincidences within one established context.

Anyway, from philosophical theism to the core beliefs of major monotheistic religions is really no giant leap. It's a smooth slope. People can decide to stop at lots of different points along the slope, but the core beliefs of major religions are not nearly as sharply defined as some people would have you believe. The range of interpretations is a pretty smooth continuum.

[Dintiradan]

I dunno. I agree that there are many different "philosophers' gods", depending on what quality the proof is dealing with (omnipotence, first cause, etc.). But there is a big gap between "I believe that the existence of a Prime Mover is necessary" and "I believe that YHWH is that Prime Mover."

 

Aside: Is there a difference between Russell's Teapot and Dawkin's Teapot, or are they one and the same? I've never heard of Dawkin's Teapot.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

Anyway, from philosophical theism to the core beliefs of major monotheistic religions is really no giant leap. It's a smooth slope. People can decide to stop at lots of different points along the slope, but the core beliefs of major religions are not nearly as sharply defined as some people would have you believe. The range of interpretations is a pretty smooth continuum.

i'm not really seeing the smooth slope between "an intelligent being created the universe" and "one particular dead dude came back to life because he was actually God"

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Arch-Mage Solberg

When we say that we believe in God but yet can not provide scientifically sound proof of our beliefs, they veiw us as totally insane.

This, right here, is the crux of it. We all disbelieve an immense number of things all the time. I don't believe that the person I am speaking with at lunch is simultaneously in Kyoto. I don't believe that my brother is a member of a secret global conspiracy. I don't believe that if I turn around, there will suddenly be a yawning, bottomless chasm behind me.

We don't believe these things because there's really no good evidence for them. I've never experienced, nor heard of anyone experiencing, someone being in two places at once. There are no global conspiracies that strike me as plausible, nor is my brother a likely candidate for membership. I've yet to find a sudden chasm.

When we get to big things, though, it gets harder. It's exceedingly difficult to assess the likelihood of God. There are piles of evolutionary evidence, but unless you are a fairly specialized biologist you aren't really equipped to weigh the claims and counterclaims. You just have to accept, one way or another, that one side is right. No one really understands the origins of the universe; everything coming out of nowhere seems fantastic, but is that more fantastic than an omnipotent being existing before everything else and causing it to suddenly happen?

I have evidence for the lack of dopplegangers, conspiracies, and chasms. I have no real evidence for or against the existence of God. But that's just it: God explains very little for me. Why add Him in when a purely physical universe is one step less inexplicable?

If atheists and theists could agree to disagree on Prime Movers everything would be fine, probably, but gods do not come without baggage. Believe in a particular deity and you get moral systems, cosmological truths, and ultimate imperatives that others not sharing your belief may find incomprehensible. God exists, so evolution does not? But even if the origin of the universe is mysterious and the origin of life is hazy, the evolution of life is quite well explained. God exists, so the Sun orbits the Earth? So went the claim in the face of observational evidence.

That, really, is the issue. Religion, at base, requires you to believe in something. You may have personal evidence or revelation, but that by nature cannot convince anyone else. Atheism requires no belief in anything without evidence, and evidence is indeed often the requirement.

—Alorael, who does not believe the universe occurred through random chance. He does not know how, physically, the universe came into being. He's equally unable to conceive of how gods would come into being, though, so they don't add much explanatory power to the picture.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

If atheists and theists could agree to disagree on Prime Movers everything would be fine, probably, but gods do not come without baggage. Believe in a particular deity and you get moral systems, cosmological truths, and ultimate imperatives that others not sharing your belief may find incomprehensible.

This is the main reason I find both Dawkins et al and some of the fiercest advocates of religion within the Christian (and especially Protestant) tradition basically unconvincing. They all primarily address religion from the standpoint of propositional truth, and to a lesser extent emotions, faith, and the like. Much of religion, both historically and in modern times, is a matter of "baggage." Most religions aren't just statements of creed: "God exists," "it is possible to have a personal relationship with God," "God has a plan for our lives," and so on. They're also sets of norms, cultures, social hierarchies, and a variety of other things. From a propositional standpoint I'm an atheist, but I do think atheists have lost something along the way by losing sight of the other things.

@Dintiradan: as far as I'm aware, "Dawkins' Teapot" just refers to Richard Dawkins' use of Russell's Teapot.

[Erebus the Black]

From wiki about agnosticsm

Originally Posted By: Søren Kierkegaard

Let us call this unknown something: God. It is nothing more than a name we assign to it. The idea of demonstrating that this unknown something (God) exists, could scarcely suggest itself to Reason. For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it. For at the very outset, in beginning my proof, I would have presupposed it, not as doubtful but as certain (a presupposition is never doubtful, for the very reason that it is a presupposition), since otherwise I would not begin, readily understanding that the whole would be impossible if he did not exist. But if when I speak of proving God's existence I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which exists, is God, then I express myself unfortunately. For in that case I do not prove anything, least of all an existence, but merely develop the content of a conception.

Originally Posted By: Thomas Henry Huxley

I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter...

 

It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions...

 

That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth.

-------------------------------------------------------

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

 

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Alorael

You may have personal evidence or revelation, but that by nature cannot convince anyone else.

Why not? A conversation with a friend who turned around and saw a yawning, bottomless chasm behind them would probably do more to make you believe in suddenly appearing chasms than someone appealing to the Holy Book of Chasms or attempting to logically prove why suddenly appearing chasms must exist.

Originally Posted By: Erasmus

From wiki about agnosticsm
[...]

Why? What does that huge long block of quotes add to the discussion?

---

Dikiyoba is inclined to believe that it's only a matter of time until there is a teapot in space, although probably only in the form of smashed bits of pottery. Human nature demands that we'll take a teapot into space and then let it float away during a space walk sooner or later. Dikiyoba isn't sure what this means for the existence of God (or gods), however.

[RCCCL]

Originally Posted By: Alorael

Stuff about belief and proof

Black Holes.

[Niemand]

Quote:

Black Holes.

What about them? We have pretty good evidence of their existence.

[RCCCL]

Evidence does not equal proof. Which has been the whole point of the conversation, I was merely adding Black Holes as another point of widely accepted "thing" with out irrefutable

proof.

[Alorael at Large]

Black holes are quite well physically/mathematically described. There's room for improvement, of course, but I'll accept that the experts have a good handle on these things.

 

They haven't been observed, and it's not known whether they actually do happen or just could happen. But it also doesn't matter. Like the mechanics of the origin of the universe, black holes (or not) have no impact on me. I believe they are likely, but they certainly aren't an important tenet of anything I hold dear.

 

—Alorael, who would think a friend claiming that chasms appeared was confused or crazy. If enough friends make the claim, well, maybe. But still, something observable by you but not by anyone else does not strong empirical evidence make.

[Student of Trinity]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

i'm not really seeing the smooth slope between "an intelligent being created the universe" and "one particular dead dude came back to life because he was actually God"

That's really not so hard. Given a creator, the first issue is how much the creator might care about intelligent creatures like us. Could be, not at all; but it's hardly crazy to imagine otherwise. I mean, if I created a universe like this one, I'd be a lot more interested in the intelligent life forms in it, than in any number of germs and bugs, let alone rocks floating in space. And I'm apt to empathize with my creations, even if they're much simpler than I am. I was always happy when my stupid Lego robots made it over a bump in the rug. If a creator didn't feel something similar, why bother creating?

From a creator understanding and empathizing with humans it really is a smooth process to considering whether a creator could in some sense even become human. Supposing the answer were in any sense Yes, the next question is clearly whether or not this has ever actually occurred. People for whom that has been claimed, and who have successfully launched world religions based on their purported insights into deity, are obviously good choices for the short list of possible candidates.

Supposing one is then seriously considering Jesus of Nazareth as an incarnation of deity, the question of what would happen if he were killed, as in fact it's pretty clear he was, is no sudden lurch of the train of thought. Mortality is the basic fact of human life; how would an incarnate transcendent being deal with that? It could still be that the body would have been left to rot like anyone else's, but it wouldn't be a giant leap to imagine that maybe something a bit unusual might have happened instead, in such an unusual case. Would that extend as far as a bodily resurrection? Supposing we've reached this point of thinking, it clearly could. And so on.

Obviously this path of thought is anything but an ironclad argument. There are plenty of reasonable places to stop along it, or diverge from it, rather than reaching the end and reciting the Athanasian Creed.

But it is a smooth continuum. And at each point, there are at least some reasonable grounds for going further.

[Venom]

Originally Posted By: Assistant Deputy Ambassador to Å

I don't believe in grammar.

But grammar believes in you.

- Venom, who is very amused at his little joke.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: Erasmus

From wiki about agnosticsm

[...]

Why? What does that huge long block of quotes add to the discussion?

 

It gives those who don't understand how someone doesn't believe in God or a god an insight to the logic behind this train of thought.

 

It also seems to me that agnosticism is a very important part of the discussion between atheism and theism, and these people put it in far better words than I could.