/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11752882]

Doesn't quantum physics disprove what he said?

[Anonymous No.11753053]

Wouldn't he be giving it more credit because he says that all potentialities come from one actuality which is everything at the same time?

[Anonymous No.11753120]

Why would it? You have to answer this because it seems like the only people claiming it does don't understand quantum mechanics or Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.11753124]

>>11752882
That, and the fact that the universe is , like, really fucking big. Like so fucking big that it bends sound or some shit.

[Anonymous No.11753127]

Read Wolfgang Smith

[Anonymous No.11753444]

>>11753120
Either God exists as Thomas Aquinas "proved" or the world is nondeterministic as John Stewart Bell "proved".
You can't have both since "God doesn't play dice" as Albert Einstein famously said.

[Anonymous No.11753487]

>>11753444
The Aristotelian argument from motion is founded on the observation that change exists. Nothing in quantum mechanics refutes this. If you disagree then explain why it would.

[Anonymous No.11753510]

>>11753487
Zeno already proved that motion can't exist.

[Anonymous No.11753515]

>>11753510
That paradox is solved by simple limits

[Anonymous No.11753521]

>>11753510
Let's suppose Zeno did. How is this relevant to quantum mechanics?

[Anonymous No.11753522]

according to most philosophy students I know, quantum mechanics disproves everything, even itself.

[Anonymous No.11753813]

>>11753120
Doesn't quantum mechanics show that things can come from nothing? And that therefore it is possible that the universe could have come from nothing putting a hole in Aquinas' argument?

[Anonymous No.11753850]

>>11753813
Everything is made up of stuff that exist only probabilistically. Look up the difference between the mass of a proton and the mass of the particles that it is made out of.

[Anonymous No.11753859]

>>11753813
Quantum mechanics doesn't prove that things can come from nothing because vacuums aren't nothing. Even if we assume that it is proven that things can come from nothing this doesn't negate the reality of change. Change can still exist even if particles appear from nothing so the Aristotelian argument still has a valid foundation.

[Anonymous No.11753860]

>>11753510
*paces back and forth*

[Anonymous No.11753880]

>>11753859
>Change can still exist even if particles appear from nothing so the Aristotelian argument still has a valid foundation.

It also wouldn't make much sense to say that things could come from nothing if change didn't exist. If anything quantum mechanics would support the argument from motion.

[Anonymous No.11753896]

>>11753444
ah yes, St. Einstein the doctor of the church, the great theologian whos off the cuff statements are infallible

[Anonymous No.11753911]

>people would rather say that something can come from nothing - literal nothing - than admit that the universe had to have a cause

[Anonymous No.11753934]

>>11753911
nowadays its trendy to say that it came from a "quantum foam", whatever the fuck that means

[Anonymous No.11753937]

inb4 physics students telling you that "you don't understand quantum physics"

[Anonymous No.11753960]

Inb4 some strawman written by Richard "I don't know what epistemic means" Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.11753983]

>>11753937
>inb4 someone knowledgeable comes in to bully us for being dilettantes

[Motoko No.11753988]

fucking faggots stop wasting time on ancient ass metaphysics, its all useless crap

[Anonymous No.11753993]

>>11753911
Yeah I'm skeptical about that position as well, I'm tempted to think that there is only 'something' and that 'nothing' is only an abstract concept.

Then I think, "Well when I die, that'll be nothing right?" Not really though, since all of the matter/energy just dissolves into something else... And though my consciousness has 'ceased', it still exists backwards in spacetime. So I dunno.

[Anonymous No.11754001]

>>11753911
why are you implying something from nothing is far fetched or silly when assuming the christian version God creates from nothing.
Ontology of nothingness is the only true philosophical position on creation.

[Anonymous No.11754034]

>>11753515
it is described by limits, not "solved".

[Anonymous No.11754036]

yes

[Anonymous No.11754061]

>>11753444
Bell's theorem doesn't prove that the world is non deterministic, all it says is that quantum measurements cant be explained by theories that rely on locality and slower than light travel. It is entirely possible for QM to be determinstic, debroglie bohm theory and many worlds interpretation are 2 popular interpretations of QM that preserve determinism.

[Anonymous No.11754067]

>>11754001
>only true philosophical position on creation
There is also the position that there was no creation and the universe always existed. How do you rule that out?

[Anonymous No.11754304]

>>11753124
holy shit you are like what, twelve? metal beams bend sound.

[Anonymous No.11754395]

>>11753127
please help me understand the corporeal/ physical distinction

I genuinely struggle with that idea. I don't know what the fuck he means

[Anonymous No.11754441]

>>11752882
no in fact it supports it

[Anonymous No.11754444]

>>11753444
>You can't have both since "God doesn't play dice" as Albert Einstein famously said.
He just might. Einstein wants to limit God because he is a jew.

>>11754061
>Bell's theorem doesn't prove that the world is non deterministic
It's still possible for the Universe to be deterministic, but Bell's theorem does provide evidence for a non-deterministic Universe.
>all it says is that quantum measurements cant be explained by theories that rely on locality and slower than light travel.
When locality comes into play, it is randomly selected out of a group of potential locations, and observation does affect the need for a locality to emerge. The world behaves as if it would render itself to observers.
>It is entirely possible for QM to be determinstic
Yes, but people choose what to believe. Determinism is a slave mentality squared, and removes all action from the Universe.
>debroglie bohm theory and many worlds interpretation are 2 popular interpretations of QM that preserve determinism.
Many worlds interpretation doesn't actually necessitate the actuality of all the other universes. They may still be mere potential, yet to be rendered.

[Anonymous No.11754601]

>>11754444
nice quads, but if by
>Determinism is a slave mentality squared
you are implying that randomness is any more compatible with the notion of 'will' -- well it isn't.

[Anonymous No.11755115]

I try to understand things before attempting to refute them. It's not a bad policy.

[Anonymous No.11755144]

>>11752882

Reason and/or most of what Jesus said disproves it.

>The disciples say to Jesus: "Tell us what our end will be."
>Jesus says: "Have you then deciphered the beginning, that you ask about the end? For where the beginning is, there shall be the end. Blessed is the man who reaches the beginning; he will know the end, and will not taste death!"

[Anonymous No.11755162]

Aristotle ironically doesn't realize that his idea of change is illusory. Parmenides unironically realizes the his ascertainment of it as illusory makes it true.

[Anonymous No.11755175]

>>11753911
Those two arent mutually exclusive. Universe did come out of nothing and the cause of it was God.

[Anonymous No.11755182]

>>11755144
Can someone explain wtf Jesus is saying to a brainlet

[Anonymous No.11755203]

>>11754001
>Ontology of nothingness is the only true philosophical position on creation.
Amazing that you claim your obviously limited knowledge on philosophy is all that there is.
>inb4 well it's the only intellectually honest position on creation
Appeal to purity.

[Anonymous No.11755212]

>>11755182
It's meaningless because Jesus never existed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lqC8fvIspY

[Anonymous No.11755268]

>>11755182
That's from the heretical gnostic Gospel of Thomas. It's to be ignored, when not forgotten.

[Anonymous No.11755565]

The notion that quantum mechanics could disprove Aquinas is exactly what's wrong the "new atheists." They make people dumb.

[Anonymous No.11755596]

>>11755182
the beginning and end are God or heaven or something

[Anonymous No.11755630]

>>11755268
Ey, another believer.

[Anonymous No.11755781]

>>11755212
>Jesus never existed
now this is an excellent example of a braindead faggot who skipped elemental education, explain to me how is it possible that you didn't forget how to breathe in your sleep?

[Anonymous No.11755804]

>>11755212
I get it when fedoralords say that God doesn't real, but saying Jesus never existed is another level up on the lazy Suzan of retardation

[Anonymous No.11755887]

>>11752882
Not really, no. All that his versions of the argument for the existence of God require is the observation of change. Some interpretations of base sensory experience might deny that, sure, but basic quantum physics principles don't. One thing can cause another to change even if there can be no absolute time scale, etc. And science as a whole is very much predicated on the existence of change and comprehensibility of the universe.

[Anonymous No.11755906]

>>11752882
he's an Aristotelian. epic fail.

[Anonymous No.11756057]

There's a dozen different interpretations of quantum physics.

[Anonymous No.11756126]

>>11755182
Jesus says find the beginning and you will know the end. What was present at the beginning but God? It means that your end is whatever God wants it to be.

[Anonymous No.11756143]

>>11753911
>implying 'cause' and 'reason' have coherency outside of our universe
It might as well come from nothing because it's beyond our scope to interact with let alone understand.

[Anonymous No.11756153]

>>11754444
>>11754601
Indeed. Randomness is tantamount to being a puppet of something beyond, there is no continuation or consistency, you're just arbitrarily dictated by something that isn't you.

[Anonymous No.11756174]

>>11753988
>myspace angle

[Anonymous No.11756179]

>>11753444
>>11754061
>>11754444
It doesn't even say this. What Bell's Theorem states is that quantum mechanics allows for correlations in nature that are stronger than any that can be accounted for by a classical theory. That's it. What this means depends on what classical intuitions about the way the world is you're comfortable with giving up.

[Anonymous No.11756197]

>>11754001
>Ontology of nothingness is the only true philosophical position on creation.
Ahem - someone would like a word with you

[Anonymous No.11756281]

>>11755212
>an historically verifiable person never existed
Lel

[Anonymous No.11756301]

>>11756281
They're like the flat earthers of atheism.

[Anonymous No.11756345]

our current understand of quantum mechanics is the realization that our math is not the actual nature of the universe, but an abstraction of it. so at the lowest level (which is really the highest level), all of our little theories and equations become a matter of statistics, not of absolute truth.

this is evident by all of the stupid little particles that scientists have to make in order to keep their math functioning. first you have the particles that make up the atom, then you have the god particle, then you have the tachyon, which somehow exists inside and outside of time at the exact same time. and our entire universe might actually be a simulation! not in the gnostic sense of the demiurge and archons, but apparently we're all just some little drones in the computer of a higher consciousness, that stacks recursively ad infinitum. it's like geocentrism. the more shit that they realize that they don't know, the more shit that they have to make up in order to keep the math working.

even if quantum mechanics made sense in it's current incarnation, all that would mean is that those nerds would have the tools necessary to affect the very nature of reality, which i'm glad they don't

[Anonymous No.11757371]

>>11755268

How is a gospel heretical?

[Anonymous No.11757374]

>>11755212
>>11755268

You two are practically the same.

[Anonymous No.11757405]

>>11754034
> he hasn't done high school calculus

>>11757371
when it's not a gospel

[Anonymous No.11757417]

>>11757405

What makes it a gospel then?

[Anonymous No.11757421]

>>11752882
Nothing has ever or will ever disprove him. Sorry, haters.

[Anonymous No.11757731]

>>11755212
>atheist is a 50 year old man with lank long hair and a goatee

what is it with atheists and this look? is it because of metal music

[Anonymous No.11757740]

>>11755144
>unironically posting gnostic cancer

[Anonymous No.11757760]

>>11752882
Its not that they disproved, but simply proved that it is not necessarily true, literally anything is possible with quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.11757952]

>>11757760
But isn't proving that it's not necessarily true the same thing as disproving it? Aquinas' has nothing to stand on if his premises aren't 100% true.

[Anonymous No.11757962]

>>11756345
based

mathematics is the solipsistic language used to describe what's always-already, working. phenomena only become mechanism when we describe them mechanistically.

[Anonymous No.11757979]

>>11757417
Not being written by a biased mind in dubious circumstances with inconsistencies to its parent literature.

[Anonymous No.11758224]

>>11757979

How would you know that?

[Anonymous No.11758233]

>>11756345
>the god particle
absolute cringe. read a book pseud

[Anonymous No.11758258]

>>11752882
quantum physics is a jewish trick

[Anonymous No.11758282]

>>11757740

Unassailable argument...

[Anonymous No.11758283]

>>11757371
When it was written by Egyptian pagans attempting to assimilate Christianity.

[Anonymous No.11758289]

>>11756345
brainlet post^

[Anonymous No.11758296]

>>11758283

Thomas was an Egyptian pagan?

[Anonymous No.11758297]

>>11756345
>our current understand of quantum mechanics is the realization that our math is not the actual nature of the universe
QM uses math retard

>but apparently we're all just some little drones in the computer of a higher consciousness, that stacks recursively ad infinitum
Deepak Chopra, pls go back to /x/

[Anonymous No.11758318]

>>11758296
Thomas the apostle was not, but the guy who what's called the gospel of Thomas was.

[Anonymous No.11758337]

>>11758318

How come? And how come the canon is not likewise an Egyptian pagan conspiracy?

[Anonymous No.11758339]

>>11757979
>Not being written by a biased mind in dubious circumstances with inconsistencies to its parent literature.
But these are all Gospels.

[Anonymous No.11758343]

>>11753522
stupidest thing i've ever read

[Anonymous No.11758346]

>>11758337
How come what? The gospel Is clearly a forgery and this is confirmed by many historical analysis by guys like Rodney Stark. It doesn't follow that because some fake historical documents exist therefore all historical documents are fake

[Anonymous No.11758390]

>>11758346
>Rodney Stark
>historical analysis
Stark is a sociologist, and literally think that 11th century chainmail is superior to 15th century plate armor, and seems think that A Connecticut Yankee is a historical source.

[Anonymous No.11758401]

>>11753860
Based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.11758406]

>>11758346

Obvious forgery is often used by deceivers to induce arrogance in their victims and make them oblivious to proper forgery, especially when one can only ascertain the two relatively to each other.

[Anonymous No.11758408]

Ya ever think old Aquinas looks a bit like Sean Connery in The Name of the Rose?

[Anonymous No.11758410]

>>11758346
Obvious forgery is often used by deceivers to induce arrogance in their victims and make them oblivious to proper forgery, especially when one can only ascertain the two relative to each other.

[Anonymous No.11758662]

>>11758346
>>11758410

Only the might of Reason can pierce all layers of illusion as easily at it pierces one of them.

[Anonymous No.11759198]

>>11758224
>How would you know that?
At some point somewhere every great literary creation has to make sense in and of itself, especially when dealing with the ultimate truth that is God. Thomas is its own thing as it doesn't fall back in a way that it would 'fit' into the Bible. In other words, it contradicts parts of the Bible that other Gospels were built upon. In even other words, you can't attach a phone book to a poetry book and consider the phone book a vital part of the poetry book.
>>11758339
A Gospel, an Epistel, a poetry or historic book, they all tie together within the core of the Bible and God's message. Thomas defies it and wants to make it its own in a way that he sees it instead of building upon the wisdom it is supposed to. It's an early form of Mormonism, yo could say.

[Anonymous No.11759214]

>>11759198
>A Gospel, an Epistel, a poetry or historic book, they all tie together within the core of the Bible and God's message
The gospels really don't. They implicit disagree in core elements of their messages, with the exact nature of Jesus and his messianic status being a big one.

[Anonymous No.11759268]

Common sense disproves him. Go ahead and read some of the Summa and you get to know his style of citing dubious sources and then making a wild projection about them.

[Anonymous No.11759282]

>>11753911
Where did God come from? It's the exact same dilemma. The answer that satisfies me is that the universe in some form is eternal.

[Anonymous No.11759283]

>>11759198

See:

>>11758410

[Anonymous No.11759652]

>>11759282
God is eternal, that is why the argument terminates with God necessarily existing.

[Anonymous No.11760300]

>>11758233

no reason to discourage using handy terms to describe something

>>11758289

why?

>>11758297

>QM uses math retard

i said nothing of the contrary

>Deepak Chopra, pls go back to /x/

i don't think you even comprehended that sentence

[Anonymous No.11760359]

>>11760300
no but there is a reason to discourage brainlets from using wrong terms to describe things they don't understand; pls kys posthaste

[Anonymous No.11760383]

>>11760359

i think it's quite dubious to believe that you understand it any better than i do, i feel bad for you quantum cultists

[Anonymous No.11760392]

>>11752882
who, exactly, is this mexican, chorizo-loving, toilet-dwelling saint?

[Anonymous No.11760423]

>>11753813
It isn't a scientific argument it is a metaphysical argument. Something cannot, under any circumstances, come from nothing. If it were ever surmised that such a possibility exists, it is only an illusion and will be known as such in time.

[Anonymous No.11760429]

>>11753993
>Accepts Aquinas' Argument from Motion
>Believes his consciousness disappears into absolute nothingness upon death
How did you come to this conclusion anon?

[Anonymous No.11760455]

>>11754067
Jesus Christ, do you even understand the Argument from Motion? Positing that the universe always existed is an infinite regress.

[Anonymous No.11760478]

>>11756143
>Taking into consideration concepts that are inherently outside of the intelligibility of men
What an absolute waste of time.

[Anonymous No.11760511]

>>11752882
Actual question: How does this fat fuck arguments and conclusions handled the fact that is highly likely that any kind of natural teleology is pretty much dead?

[Anonymous No.11760530]

>>11754067
Aquinas's first way
Proving God exists in a per se causal series (as in Aquinas's 1st way) doesn't particularly need to address the possibility of an eternal universe which would be concerned with a per accidens causal series.

[Anonymous No.11760535]

>>11760455
Do you understand it? Aristotle and Aquinas both believed the universe was eternal. They weren't arguing for a temporal causation that goes back in time like a series of dominoes but rather a hierarchical causal series which happens simultaneously. A linear series could have an infinite series of causes while the hierarchical series could not because second movers derive their movement simultaneously from the first mover. Not every regress is vicious.

[Anonymous No.11760566]

>>11760535
>Aristotle and Aquinas both believed the universe was eternal.
I'm not sure for Aristotle, but Aquinas believed the universe had a beginning; He was Catholic (Gen. 1:1). He just didn't think you could prove it had a beginning through philosophical means.

>They weren't arguing for a temporal causation that goes back in time like a series of dominoes but rather a hierarchical causal series which happens simultaneously.
Can confirm. Aquinas's arguments dealt with essentially ordered series. Think of a line of gears with a gear at one end, attached to a motor. The gear on the other end isn't going to turn unless the one before it, turns it, but that one needs to be turned by another, etc. You'll find that it is such that one gear (one attached to a motor) has generative power to make the others move simultaneously (in one instance). An infinite line of gears cannot generate power to move the gear that we are interested in, just as an infinite amount of train cars isn't going to move the last one.

So think of that line of gears. Put it perpendicular to a timeline. That depicts an essentially ordered series that occurs in a single instance, where without the "first" gear, the power to turn gears and be turned is absent.

[Anonymous No.11760794]

>>11760383
>quantum cultists
hahahaha holy fuck
i'm serious, kys now

[Anonymous No.11761248]

Modern science basically considers only one kind of causality, namely the efficient. But Aquinas, working in the general tradition of antiquity and the middle ages, considered there to be multiple kinds of causity. Most of the modern "criticisms" of Aquinas stem a misunderstanding of what Aquinas meant by cause, and hence they almost never amount to genuine criticism.

[Anonymous No.11761264]

>>11760566
You misunderstand Aquinas. When he says God is the first cause he doesn't mean this in a purely efficient manner. He also is the final and perhaps formal cause. Hence his God's priority is not one of mere temporality, but is also something ontological. It is very important in ancient and midieval philosophy to distinguish between kinds of priority and kinds of cause.

[Anonymous No.11761276]

>>11761264
Also, if for Aquinas the world has a beginning its beginning is obvious not itself temporal, since time is a condition of the changeability of matter, which according to Christian metaphysics God created. So God's priority cannot just be a temporal priority since there is no time prior to the world which God continual creates. And Eriugena said that God is both created and creating since he creates himself in the creation of the world.

[Anonymous No.11761333]

>>11761264
I never denied God as the Alpha and the Omega??? I agree that God sustains all being and all motion. And I'd agree that God is the final cause—as men, we are intended to end in the Beatific Vision.

>>11761276
I don't see how I'm claiming God to be a a merely temporal priority? God would have to be outside of time to be pure actuality


wanna clarify? cuz I don't think I made any assumptions or implicitly disagreed with Aquinas

[Anonymous No.11761343]

If there's a god I want to fuck it.

[Anonymous No.11761598]

>>11757740
Has "leftist" come to mean "anyone I don't like" for conservatives?

[Anonymous No.11761617]

>>11761598
No. It's a word which indicates a particular worldview and conservatives aren't the only ones who use it. It's not a slur.

[Anonymous No.11761641]

>>11761617
What worldview would that be?

[Anonymous No.11761668]

>>11761641
One of progressive politics which favors a top down approach to the ordering of society, one where a few intellectuals identify problems and create solutions. They make a particular assumption about human nature which is that it's inherently good, but only becomes bad through conditioning or training. This is why they tend towards utopian thinking.

[Anonymous No.11761706]

Can someone explain what the fuck are you guys talking about, it's been a while since I read Aquinas

[Anonymous No.11761738]

>>11754001
>the christian version God creates from nothing
I thought this was a misinterpretation of Genesis? Doesn't the original Hebrew hint at God swirling a "pool of chaos" into the created world we know today? Or am I mixing this up with another creation myth?

[Anonymous No.11761813]

>>11761738
You've got it absolutely right. "Ex nihilo" creation is a mistake of Christian thought, in the Hebrew account of Genesis the world is made from "Tohu and Bohu," corresponding to Tiamat and someone else from the Babylonian myths. The world was made from chaos, chaotic matter, but matter all the same.

[Anonymous No.11761815]

>>11759214
Total nonsense. Inconsistencies there are, but they're fairly vague poetics than contradictions and they were never edited out to deceive, but left there to ponder on.
>>11759283
If the forgery is so blatant and it induces arrogance, it more a failure of the victim that the one causing harm.

[Anonymous No.11761878]

>>11761813
Thanks, good to know. When was this mistake made? Early Christianity or Medieval Christianity?

[Anonymous No.11761906]

Aquinas was a mistake. Read Augustine.

[Anonymous No.11762557]

>>11761815
>Total nonsense. Inconsistencies there are, but they're fairly vague poetics than contradictions and they were never edited out to deceive, but left there to ponder on.
>Widely contradictory, mutually exclusive accounts of Jesus birth
>Widely contradictory, mutually exclusive accounts of Jesus batism
>Widely contradictory, mutually exclusive accounts of Jesus ressurrection
Let me guess, it wasn't of their "psychology" to create this outlandish stories despite cults becoming even crazier after catastrophic failure being widely documented.

[Anonymous No.11762803]

>>11761815

As dim as 2000s "atheists", like this guy:

>>11755212

[Anonymous No.11763124]

>>11761906
>This Doctor of the Church was a mistake
>Read this Doctor of the Church!

[Anonymous No.11763273]

>>11761906
Augustine was a mistake. Read Anaximander.

[Anonymous No.11763355]

>>11761878
Pretty early. A quick search shows that Irenaus and Augustine both espoused it. So Augustine's fault.

[Anonymous No.11763363]

>>11762557
You'll have to post citations then.
And again, you're talking about inconsistencies, which is literally all of ancient history, not contradictions. Not to mention some Gospels omit parts that you're talking about entirely.
Don't be so butthurt.
>>11762803
Sorry?

[Anonymous No.11763375]

>>11762557
Guess how I know you haven't actually studied the bible?

[Anonymous No.11763645]

>>11763363

No, I'M sorry.

[Anonymous No.11764234]

>>11763363
>>11763375
https://www.quora.com/When-was-Jesus-born/answers/841947
https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1
https://www.quora.com/Jesus/What-are-Tim-ONeills-specific-objections-to-the-Christian-belief-that-Jesus-is-God/answer/Tim-ONeill-1
https://www.quora.com/How-do-atheists-or-non-literal-Christians-explain-how-so-many-Messianic-prophecies-were-fulfilled-by-Jesus/answer/Tim-ONeill-1
Here is the quickly rundown. And before someone accuses the guy of fedora-tipping, he actually constantly shits on those kind of people.

[Anonymous No.11764372]

>>11764234
>quora lmao

[Anonymous No.11764438]

>>11764372
If you deslike it, then post an actual rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.11764542]

>>11752882
>quantum physics refute a philosophical argument
My fucking sides

[Anonymous No.11764622]

>>11754061
>believing in unnecessary and unfalsifiable postulates because the results of QM are scary

[Anonymous No.11765449]

>>11764372
Quora is usually trash, but Tim O'Neill is pretty good, in other stuff as well. I've enjoyed a lot of his more sourced historical stuff.
>>11762557
>>11764234
The birth accounts are not contradictory, their absence in Mark makes sense given the traditional sourcing, his dependence on Herodotus' date for the death of Herod is not an ironclad argument, and they're not exactly relevant to Christian doctrine. A survey that would be described by the people as a census is also not ruled out by the available sources, and seems something particularly easy for eyewitnesses to contradict at the time the gospels with it were written. In any case, it's not relevant to the truth or falsity of Christianity. A metaphorical understanding of these passages would not disrupt existing doctrine.

His arguments in these questions are weaker than most of his usual work (in fairness, this is both inevitable with the scarcity of sources and something he makes no pretense about). Basically the only sources for support of or objections to Christ being seen as divine or resurrected are the new testament texts themselves. His point that divinity is less referenced in the synoptic Gospels than John's makes sense, but there is plenty of leeway in interpretation there. The gospels were, in being written, aimed at different audiences, and the earlier Gospels are not in any way incompatible with Christ as divine, though they certainly never state it as clearly as in John. 70 years from the events in question is also a remarkably short time, and John's attribution of divinity on that scale would be a huge shift in belief over that short a timeframe, and such a shift would be rather blatant to contemporaries.

I don't think he's unbiased here (nor am I), though practically anyone forming an interpretation of those sections will be. In essence, though, those aren't at all ironclad arguments against Christianity or the Bible- they are, however, certainly strong enough for an atheist to have reasonable doubts about the formation Christian doctrine in its earliest years.

[Anonymous No.11765607]

>>11765449
>His point that divinity is less referenced in the synoptic Gospels than John's makes sense
hmm, there are many times where Jesus refers to Himself as God or divine in general in very ingenious ways or even by quoting from scripture.

>Mark 10:18-21
And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother. But he answering, said to him: Master, all these things I have observed from my youth. And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.

Christ is telling the young man "Why do *you* call me good, where only God is good?" Christ is emphasizing why is it that the young man feels compelled to call Jesus such while knowing God is alone good.

Then Christ begins to list off the commandments and the young man says "I've done all those!" Christ neglects 3 commandment though, specifically the first three, the ones that refer to God. Then Christ tells the young man to follow Him, essentially telling the guy that "you'll fulfill the first three commandments once you follow me, God."


The New Testament is very delicate, especially Mark, the urgency gospel. It would seem like this gospel doesn't really speak to Christ's divinity, but it's just that all the info is jam packed into a terse book.

[Anonymous No.11765633]

>>11765449
> but there is plenty of leeway in interpretation there
With the context of 1st century jewish theology, there really wouldn’t be. Only Jonh indicates a huge shift, which might have been caused by the romans razing Judea and dispersing the local population, which could have caused earlier christians to interact with hellenistic, deification-loving groups.

[Anonymous No.11765647]

>>11765607
>And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God.Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother. But he answering, said to him: Master, all these things I have observed from my youth. And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me
Jesus is literally saying that he isn’t God there, lad.

[Anonymous No.11765729]

>>11765647
show why the emphasis of Mark 10:18 isn't

"why do
>you
call me good?

but

"why do you call me
>good?

The fact that the perfection seeking young man says he's adhered to the latter 7 commandments when asked by Jesus as to whether or not he has, and the fact that Jesus withholds His inquiry towards this young man about the first three commandments (the only ones about God), to say instead "follow me," implies that Christ is telling the young man that to be perfect, he must observe all the commandments, where the first three shall be fulfilled by following Him, which would mean that Jesus Christ is God.

[Anonymous No.11765795]

>>11765729
Because, within the context, there wouldn't be a reason to Jesus also omit the 3 first, even if Jesus is indeed God, for, after all, said man may also held gods other than God, use His name in vain, and engage in idolatry, and, likewise, he saying "Why do you call me good?" don't really makes sense within the context of Jesus the God, as it would imply that Jesus isn't good, only God, while Jesus the Man actually fits, as Jesus would be just a agent of God.

[Anonymous No.11766471]

>>11765607
>>11765729
Yeah, it's definitely referenced, just considerably more obliquely than in John. Might not be the best example you chose there, though ("why do you call me good" almost as easily being a rebuke as present there).The early Gospels were less aimed at Jews and more towards generally pagan groups in other areas, so the usual explanation I've heard is that his humanity was strongly emphasized.
>>11765633
If there's not a huge shift from contemporary jewish theology in the synoptic gospels, their persecution by Jewish authorities (of which we have firsthand accounts) only strengthens the argument that the early Church believed in the divinity of Jesus, emphasized in Gospels or not. There are moments in those Gospels that would have been radically different from contemporary Jewish beliefs as well, even if less a departure than was emphasized later. As I said, it does come down to interpretation, but it's definitely not a thematic contradiction between the Gospels or strong proof that the early Church believed Jesus to be a human prophet. Just something that fits either explanation well enough to leave the argument for or against Christianity more reliant on other considerations than historical.

[Anonymous No.11767190]

>>11764234
>https://www.quora.com/When-was-Jesus-born/answers/841947
>takes Mark as the earliest gospel for granted
>thinks that all Gospels have the same literary purpose
>>11764438
>post an actual rebuttal
Anon, Tim literally shows his bias and outright faulty understanding of literature in the very first link.
>Firstly, I'm an atheist. So I don't accept the Christian claim that "Jesus is God" because I am wholly unconvinced that any such "God" exists in the first place. I regard this "God" to be a story that people tell themselves and others for various social, cultural and psychological reasons and regard him as imaginary as Christians regard the "gods" of other religions, for exactly the same reasons.
>tips fedora

[Anonymous No.11767200]

>>11764234
Look at this happy face of a definitely non-biased wannabe nihilist.
No, but seriously. If you want rebutal to this guy, just look up inspiringphilosophy on youtube or something. The man spews reworded basic level atheism with near to nil understanding of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.11768232]

>His disciples said to him, "Who are you, that you should say these things to us?"
>Jesus said to them, "You do not realize who I am from what I say to you, but you have become like the Jews, for they either love the tree and hate its fruit or love the fruit and hate the tree."