Why Christ is the Son of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nothing dogmatic about it, Vlad.

You either have a method that's accurate, reliable and consistent, or you don't. It's that simple.

Yes, I'm wondering if you have read what I have written this morning paralleling science with religion.

Religion is not science, but like science experience and I guess from that experiment is important and the individual is, as scientific instrumentation, instrumental in religion.
I wonder whether consistency, reliability and accuracy and are as clear cut in science as you would like to make
Accuracy in instrumentation is questionable but agreement helps establish it......

That said experience, accuracy in interpretation of experience, reliability and consistency(religions have lasted millennia after all even nuclear scientists have approached religious experts to discuss piggybacking warnings about nuclear waste on religion)
are a feature of religion.

[Khatru]

Jesus is called the Son of God because God ordained it...

Was it also ordained that Jesus was right-handed?  Or was that left-handed?  Maybe the divine ordination was to make Jesus ambidextrous?

What DNA did your god ordain for Jesus? He would had to have selected a specific DNA rather than just shuffling the cards and dealing a random hand.

I take it you know that plenty of people have a genetic predisposition to what you would think of as "sins".  Tell me, did the supreme cosmic mega being take care to include all those conditions in Jesus' DNA so that he could be tempted in everything?

Did he also ordain that Jesus have a tendency towards alcoholism? Just think, in that way he could be tempted in the same way that humans with that inclination are.  After all, if you take cross-section through society at large you'll find people engaged in deep struggles with problems at all sorts of different levels.  Did Jesus have a high sex drive?  Perhaps he enjoyed gambling?  Was he prone to beating up women?

If Jesus was to truly experience all that humans did then surely the supreme cosmic mega being would have ordained that all of the above and probably more would have to go into Jesus' genetic make-up.  Did the Lord ordain that Jesus have homosexual tendencies? 

At what level was it ordained that Jesus' metabolic rate should be set at?  If he was to experience hunger then that would warrant special consideration. What about a pain threshold?  Then there's the IQ level - where did your god ordain that at?  Couldn't be too high if the supreme cosmic mega-being wanted Jesus to interact with humans on their level.

It's safe to say that humans are far more admirable and noble than your Jesus ever was. We humans are the ones who have no choice other than to deal with the DNA we get.

Now that's a real triumph compared to some imaginary being whose DNA and genetic make-up was divinely ordained.

[Sassy]

It may seem that way to Christians: but it only seems that way since, no doubt, adherents of other religions would say the same (linguistically speaking of course) of their 'encounters'.

Can you give me historical events like Christ coming the Messiah as told from other religions.

You see I can see the message of Gods son clearly throughout history since he came.
But I see nothing in relation to these other religions. Do you not admit there has been no notable encounters for people of other religions throughout history? There has been no significant world changes than that through Christ from 2,000 years or so ago.

So what does it take Gordon for you to sit up and notice that something about Jesus Christ was different. What changed all those people and brought a worldwide change to many thousands and millions?

Do you deceive yourself Gordon? Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the chosen Messiah told by men throughout history.
Is it a coincidence or is he the Son of God who has died to bring mankind back to God before the end of the world?

You need to make a choice and you need to ask what if in accepting Christ you know the truth. How would you tell others what you have found to be true?

[floo]

Jesus is a storybook character. What is attributed to him has no more credence than the stories surrounding Harry Potter and his chums.

[Sassy]

By what means would one know?

The same way Saul/Paul did. Because the truth is that if you wanted to know if Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah who died to save the world. Then you could always ask God to take your spiritual blindness away and show you that Jesus is his Son.
Do you know why most men will die? Because of their pride.  You cannot ask God because you will not humble yourself to the notion that Christ is Lord of all things on earth. You deny yourself the one truth which benefits all mankind and especially yourself.

The means are clear. You only have to seek and Ask but you will do neither because you are afraid of what that would mean.
Becoming the one on the other side. But eventually all sides will cease and only those left will be the ones who chose the truth and sought the way.

Jesus is the Son of God and not one man in all the time since he came has been able to remove that truth.

I pray one day you seek for yourself and find Christ in your heart and not the disbelief of your head.

[Sassy]

It's a matter of faith, not knowledge. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Mostly to themselves.

Would that include yourself. The one who said she only needs the material and then claims to be a pagan?

It is a matter of opinion and your past post shows your opinion is not sustainable given your double minded thinking and claims.
Show Christ is a liar... You do what he did. Heal the sick, cure the lame, make the blind see. Prove God did not send him.
You see where you fall down. Many people witnessed the miracles of Christ. Many still healed in his name.
You think you can show all those Prophets, disciples and followers to be liars?

Your comment carries no weight and furthermore is has no truth. It is denial and fear because you have nothing to sustain your belief.

[Sassy]

You don't need me to do this so either answer my point or run off & hide, shouting abuse as you get thrown about again - AS USUAL !!!

I see you are running away and relying on false accusations.
Nothing new there Trippy.

Your motto, " If at first I don't succeed, I will make false accusations to hide my epic failure"

Trippy, I have no interest in playground antics. Either put up or shut up.

We all can see your slip.

[Sassy]

It means that it can be demonstrated, Vlad.

Feel free to demonstrate God for me.

You demonstrate your paganism, first.

Oh! you can't you already admitted they are myths.

Ever thought the problem is your own train of thought and the way you think.

You love what is false how can you ever find the gravity of that which is true?

[Shaker]

The same way Saul/Paul did. Because the truth is that if you wanted to know if Christ is the Son of God and the Messiah who died to save the world. Then you could always ask God to take your spiritual blindness away and show you that Jesus is his Son.

That would entail merely assuming to be true the very thing that stands in need of demonstration, which is nonsense.

Do you know why most men will die?

Everybody's going to die, and degradation of telomeres over time has a large part to play in this.

Because of their pride.  You cannot ask God because you will not humble yourself to the notion that Christ is Lord of all things on earth.

I've always found humility to be the preserve of those with plenty to be humble about.

You deny yourself the one truth which benefits all mankind and especially yourself.

It doesn't benefit me to believe nonsense.

The means are clear. You only have to seek and Ask but you will do neither because you are afraid of what that would mean.

See first response above.

Jesus is the Son of God and not one man in all the time since he came has been able to remove that truth.

It isn't the truth, or at least is so only subjectively, which makes it a belief or an opinion.

Negative proof fallacy duly noted while we're at it.

I pray one day you seek for yourself and find Christ in your heart and not the disbelief of your head.

Your prayers will meet with the same level of success as all others. See Alan Burns's thread about his friend Becky on the PTA board for further details.

[Gordon]

Can you give me historical events like Christ coming the Messiah as told from other religions.

Why should I do that? Claims about messiahs of any sort aren't mine to make, so the burden of proof is on those who make messiah claims: such as yourself.

You see I can see the message of Gods son clearly throughout history since he came.

So you say: but you could be wrong.

But I see nothing in relation to these other religions.

That would be due to your confirmation bias, with an added dash of special pleading.

Do you not admit there has been no notable encounters for people of other religions throughout history?

They may claim this, or claim it of others, but that doesn't confirm that they encountered a specific 'something': people get stuff wrong, people make stuff up while other people can be highly credulous - so you'd need to have a method to address these risks.

There has been no significant world changes than that through Christ from 2,000 years or so ago.

Plain wrong.

So what does it take Gordon for you to sit up and notice that something about Jesus Christ was different.

Some convincing evidence that is underpinned by an appropriate methodology would be needed - to date no has been offered one, so the risks of mistakes and lies remain unaddressed.

What changed all those people and brought a worldwide change to many thousands and millions?

You can choose any permutation of fallacies you like to explain this, since in the absence of a suitable method there are no compelling arguments for 'god' that aren't fallacious in one way or another.

Do you deceive yourself Gordon?

On the issue of 'god' I don't think so as things stand, given the absence of a method to demonstrate the divine that is inherently fallacious - should such a method be offered then that may change my position.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the chosen Messiah told by men throughout history.

Which seems like a fallacious statement on several counts.

Is it a coincidence or is he the Son of God who has died to bring mankind back to God before the end of the world?

Which seems like another fallacious statement.

You need to make a choice and you need to ask what if in accepting Christ you know the truth. How would you tell others what you have found to be true?

I have: I've rejected Christianity (and theism in general) as being fallacious, and in rejecting the truth claims of others I'm not making a truth claim myself.

[Stranger]

Let me gather up your ideas and answer the gathering as it were.

Except you totally fail to actually provide an answer to any of my questions...

You talk of a world experiencing that which doesn't seem to be covered by the uniformity of science. Do you now go down the line of empiricism?
How then can a whole world be an aberration? Isn't it statistically more correct to say that it is non experience which is the aberration?

Or we could take the epidemiological approach and say these experiences are an infestation, a pandemic in which there are only a few immune? If you go down this line then what warrant do you have for doing so?

Remember that it is you who labelled these experiences as "aberrations". I suspect that people have experiences that they tend to interpret according to their religious culture or other predispositions.

You ask if the whole world can an "aberration" but you seem to think that the whole world except for those claiming an experience of your sub-species of Christian god would be an "aberration". Otherwise, you cannot claim to have the correct interpretation yourself.

The fact is that these interpretations of experiences cannot all be true; whatever we conclude, we are left with most people being mistaken.

Which brings us back to how can we decide which, if any, are true?

Then, to repeat the bit you completely ignored:

All that before we get on the absurdity of an omnipotent god (is your species of Christian god omnipotent?) attempting to communicate important messages only though unverifiable personal experiences that get lost amongst all the noise of other experiences and/or are often misinterpreted.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I have. It falls apart with 'knowledge is what we know first hand' and vanishes completely with a mention of Polkinghorne - who I have read, btw.

But then I've just seen you throwing your toys out of the pram in response to a reasonable post from Shaker so I'm not sure how much point remains in discussing this with you. Never mind.

Yes, Vlad's long post about knowledge is vitiated by its starting premise that knowledge is first-hand.   This is a re-definition really, which presumably helps Vlad to describe science in terms of trust.

One common definition of science is public knowledge, but this doesn't mean that everyone has personally experienced a particular scientific experiment or observation.   These are repeatable, this is why they are termed 'public'. 

If I discover a certain particle X, I will publish my results, and methods, and then other teams of scientists will attempt to replicate them.   They don't just say, ah, Wigginhall is a good chap, so we will trust his stuff.   

Well, if you set up a premise like this, you can get to any result you want.   Yawn. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, Vlad's long post about knowledge is vitiated by its starting premise that knowledge is first-hand.   This is a re-definition really, which presumably helps Vlad to describe science in terms of trust.

One common definition of science is public knowledge, but this doesn't mean that everyone has personally experienced a particular scientific experiment or observation.   These are repeatable, this is why they are termed 'public'. 

If I discover a certain particle X, I will publish my results, and methods, and then other teams of scientists will attempt to replicate them.   They don't just say, ah, Wigginhall is a good chap, so we will trust his stuff.   

Well, if you set up a premise like this, you can get to any result you want.   Yawn.

No,
 I analysed your position. You have two logical directions in which to go from what you are saying
1. Empiricism. In which everything else is meaningless including criticism of religion
2. Religion is an aberration and non religion is how people should be.
You cannot have 1 and 2 but such a contradiction is where your position leads you.

[wigginhall]

No,
 I analysed your position. You have two logical directions in which to go from what you are saying
1. Empiricism. In which everything else is meaningless including criticism of religion
2. Religion is an aberration and non religion is how people should be.
You cannot have 1 and 2 but such a contradiction is where your position leads you.

That's false.  Describing science as public knowledge, and describing observations and experiments as repeatable, does not lead to the conclusion that everything else is meaningless.   You have stuck that bit in yourself. 

Again, you bring up the term 'aberration', not me.   I don't think that everything outside science is wrong, or false, or stupid.

You seem to be swerving from your claim that knowledge is first-hand.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's false.  Describing science as public knowledge, and describing observations and experiments as repeatable, does not lead to the conclusion that everything else is meaningless.   You have stuck that bit in yourself. 

Again, you bring up the term 'aberration', not me.   I don't think that everything outside science is wrong, or false, or stupid.

You seem to be swerving from your claim that knowledge is first-hand.   

Many apologies Wigginhall.
I have inadvertently replied to someone else but on your post by mistake.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, Vlad's long post about knowledge is vitiated by its starting premise that knowledge is first-hand.   This is a re-definition really, which presumably helps Vlad to describe science in terms of trust.

One common definition of science is public knowledge, but this doesn't mean that everyone has personally experienced a particular scientific experiment or observation.   These are repeatable, this is why they are termed 'public'. 

If I discover a certain particle X, I will publish my results, and methods, and then other teams of scientists will attempt to replicate them.   They don't just say, ah, Wigginhall is a good chap, so we will trust his stuff.   
 

No, but the vast majority cannot or will not attempt to replicate them and actually will take it on trust

Public knowledge? What the hell is that? and what has it to do with my observation that we take most scientific knowledge on trust and don't actually know it ourselves.

Your post addresses nothing IMHO.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should I do that? Claims about messiahs of any sort aren't mine to make, so the burden of proof is on those who make messiah claims: such as yourself.

So you say: but you could be wrong.

That would be due to your confirmation bias, with an added dash of special pleading.

They may claim this, or claim it of others, but that doesn't confirm that they encountered a specific 'something': people get stuff wrong, people make stuff up while other people can be highly credulous - so you'd need to have a method to address these risks.

Plain wrong.

Some convincing evidence that is underpinned by an appropriate methodology would be needed - to date no has been offered one, so the risks of mistakes and lies remain unaddressed.

You can choose any permutation of fallacies you like to explain this, since in the absence of a suitable method there are no compelling arguments for 'god' that aren't fallacious in one way or another.

On the issue of 'god' I don't think so as things stand, given the absence of a method to demonstrate the divine that is inherently fallacious - should such a method be offered then that may change my position.

Which seems like a fallacious statement on several counts.

Which seems like another fallacious statement.

I have: I've rejected Christianity (and theism in general) as being fallacious, and in rejecting the truth claims of others I'm not making a truth claim myself.

I can vouch that you don't make truth claims.

[Stranger]

No, but the vast majority cannot or will not attempt to replicate them and actually will take it on trust

Not entirely, no. There is a process in place to check scientific results; other scientists can and do check and double check results. In addition, we can tell that the process generally works because we do test the results of the process of science; some of them on a daily basis. For example, every time you use a device containing semiconductors you are testing quantum mechanics - use a GPS device and you are testing relativity too. If you are unfortunate to get ill, you may well test some aspect of medical science.

In contrast, at least most people who have religious experiences and who interpret them as encounters with something objectively real, are definitely wrong. Whichever god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong. There is no consensus and no way to test the results. If one group is right, then everybody else is wrong.

How about you address the basis of your own claims? Why should we believe your interpretation of your experience, rather than all the others or none at all?

[wigginhall]

No, but the vast majority cannot or will not attempt to replicate them and actually will take it on trust

Public knowledge? What the hell is that? and what has it to do with my observation that we take most scientific knowledge on trust and don't actually know it ourselves.

Your post addresses nothing IMHO.

Well, I think that you are evading scrutiny of religious claims, by talking about science.   I can't see the point really.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, I think that you are evading scrutiny of religious claims, by talking about science.   I can't see the point really.

That's funny because I thought I was responding to Shaker who was comparing science to religion by saying science was marked by accuracy, reliability and consistency.

I discussed how far scientific knowledge was all these three and stated that they were also important and found in religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not entirely, no. There is a process in place to check scientific results; other scientists can and do check and double check results. In addition, we can tell that the process generally works because we do test the results of the process of science; some of them on a daily basis. For example, every time you use a device containing semiconductors you are testing quantum mechanics - use a GPS device and you are testing relativity too. If you are unfortunate to get ill, you may well test some aspect of medical science.

In contrast, at least most people who have religious experiences and who interpret them as encounters with something objectively real, are definitely wrong. Whichever god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong. There is no consensus and no way to test the results. If one group is right, then everybody else is wrong.

How about you address the basis of your own claims? Why should we believe your interpretation of your experience, rather than all the others or none at all?

All you are saying is that science checks itself...but then religions check themselves as well.

Non believers have checked out religion and found it to be true.
Those that do not find anything at all in it can I think put the failure down to approaching it as though what it represents is a scientific, materialistic truth.

[Stranger]

All you are saying is that science checks itself...but then religions check themselves as well.

That will be why all religion is in agreement, then....     

Where are the results of this checking of which you speak?

Non believers have checked out religion and found it to be true.

What non-believers and which religion did they find to be true...?

Those that do not find anything at all in it can I think put the failure down to approaching it as though what it represents is a scientific, materialistic truth.

How should we approach it in order to discover which of the many mutually contradictory claims are true? This is a point you continue to ignore: even if one religion is right, most are wrong.

[Sassy]

Why should I do that? Claims about messiahs of any sort aren't mine to make, so the burden of proof is on those who make messiah claims: such as yourself.

So you say: but you could be wrong.

That would be due to your confirmation bias, with an added dash of special pleading.

They may claim this, or claim it of others, but that doesn't confirm that they encountered a specific 'something': people get stuff wrong, people make stuff up while other people can be highly credulous - so you'd need to have a method to address these risks.

Plain wrong.

Some convincing evidence that is underpinned by an appropriate methodology would be needed - to date no has been offered one, so the risks of mistakes and lies remain unaddressed.

You can choose any permutation of fallacies you like to explain this, since in the absence of a suitable method there are no compelling arguments for 'god' that aren't fallacious in one way or another.

On the issue of 'god' I don't think so as things stand, given the absence of a method to demonstrate the divine that is inherently fallacious - should such a method be offered then that may change my position.

Which seems like a fallacious statement on several counts.

Which seems like another fallacious statement.

I have: I've rejected Christianity (and theism in general) as being fallacious, and in rejecting the truth claims of others I'm not making a truth claim myself.

All that huff and puff nonsense and it all adds up to you having no proof.
IT IS TRUE.. You cannot base your disbelief on any actual evidence.
As I said it is your pride... you cannot risk being wrong can you? But you cannot prove yourself right.
Christianity and knowing God and Christ is a personal relationship which requires no validation outside the people in the relationship.

Sooner you realise that the believer under no obligation to prove anything because we all know if you truly were interested in the truth and knowing God you would take a step back and actually follow the WAY Christ taught. The disciples did not hang around those who refused to believe in Christ. Once the number there were added to believers they moved on to the next place.

You do realise that you are not going to convince anyone you made an informed decision, don't you.
All that waffle and it meant absolutely nothing...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

No, but the vast majority cannot or will not attempt to replicate them and actually will take it on trust

Well that shows just how much you know about science then.

For the most part science proceeds on the basis of baby steps. Every field has a hard edge where out knowledge runs out.

If you had ever done any scientific research you would know that it starts with a literature review. i.e. what people have currently reported.

Normally the next step is to define the next steps/hypothesis based on this prior research. This may or may not include direct replication of methods and previous results in my case, and most of the ones I am aware of, it normally does. If the next stage of research contradicts the previous ones then the either I have gone wrong or the previous conclusion are in need of revision. This is the beauty of the method, we hold knowledge that is provisional and if the weight of future data weighs against it then the current state of the art will be revised.

Contrast this with a religious claim often made about prayer.

You ask for something and the answer can be:

Yes

No

Not yet

There is absolutely no way to falsify this claim.

Take our recent discussion about design in the natural world. It is not possible to know whether or not that the design is sub-optimal or that what we think are flaws are really the perfect design viewed form the perspective of a tri-Omni God.

Take the recent claim of Hope that I challenged about God not being able to sin. Well it was clear he commanded what we would describe as genocide. However, if he exists, maybe he has a justifiable reason that is not obvious to us. How could we know? Again it's a claim that can't be revised or demonstrated true. It is the absolute opposite of the scientific method.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That will be why all religion is in agreement, then....     

Where are the results of this checking of which you speak?

But not all scientists are in agreement, indeed there are some basic disputes about whether multiverse theories are science or whether things which there can be no tests for are science. whether there should be falsifiability in science, or essentialism in science.

Religions have checking in the sense of consistency of experience and tradition.