What Do We Know about the Resurrection of Jesus?

[_I have a question]

If you're saying that I have no foundational logic to use as a base for my assertion that there is a God in control of this universe, who I can be certain wants us individually to know Her/His will, then I agree completely.

You have no foundational logic for any of your assertions. Period.

But if someone is not going to believe in the existence of such a God, what alternative does that someone have? Someone who doesn't believe in anything might have the assurance that at least s/he is not wrong, but such a victory rings kind of hollow to me.

Your ability to contemplate looking gif seems to be absent.
The alternative to a belief in God is not someone who doesn't believe in anything. If you cannot comprehend that, then any discussion with you is completely futile.

Reasonable, rational, objective enquiries into what is already known, can indeed produce a lot of positive results. But they are not the only things that result in positive results. Being based in reality is a good thing. But just as important as (or perhaps more so than) understanding the truth of the things that are, is understanding the truth about what things should be.

Reasonable, rational, objective enquiry based on what is already known is how you avoid baseless conclusions, confirmation bias, wishful thinking and la la land.

I look at the universe and make the observation that if someone doesn't take action to preserve some good things forever, then nothing good will be preserved forever.

Again the complete absence of an ability to comprehend a spectrum of options.

And I register my rejection of an outcome where nothing good gets preserved forever.

You think a disbelief in God = nothing good gets preserved forever. That conclusion follows nothing but your fanciful and baseless set of predetermined wishful thinkings. Your ability to think outside of binary contemplations seems absent.

My conscience will not let me content myself with such a probable outcome. Conscientious people need a forever preserver. The only choice is whether one believes such a preserver currently exists, or whether one realizes that s/he must work toward producing such a preserver. I have simply made the former choice.

That you cannot see the logical fallacy of these statements suggests you are perfectly suited to Mormonism.

Your very first statement "But in the very beginning, there isn't another way of learning the truth" is completely wrong, an entirely false premise, but you need it to be right because the rest of your conclusion relies solely upon it.

Sorry about that! I left out one very important word. I should have said, "But in the very beginning, there isn't another way of learning the truth" about God. We can't begin our knowledge about the will of God in our lives without input from God.

Do you think that that statement "is completely wrong, an entirely false premise"?

Absolutely. Because it is.

If you do think so, then are you aware of another way to start one's knowledge of the will of God in our lives? Going on the assumption that a deity in control of the universe exists, of course.

That's the point, you always start with a predetermined and baseless assumption.

You've decided there's a God for no other reason than that's what you want to believe. You could, on the same basis, start your logic flow by saying that a leprechaun is in control of the universe. The statements that follow from that will be just as logically sound. I'll repeat the first line of my reply on this post...

You have no foundational logic for any of your assertions. Period.

[_Dr. Shades]

But if someone is not going to believe in the existence of such a God, what alternative does that someone have?

The alternative is simply not to believe in such a God. Easy peasy.

Someone who doesn't believe in anything might have the assurance that at least s/he is not wrong, but such a victory rings kind of hollow to me.

It's not a "victory," hollow or otherwise. It's simply a conclusion. Or was your realization that Santa Claus isn't real a hollow victory?

But just as important as (or perhaps more so than) understanding the truth of the things that are, is understanding the truth about what things should be.

Nowhere in the rule book does it say that anything should be something. Things simply are or are not.

I look at the universe and make the observation that if someone doesn't take action to preserve some good things forever, then nothing good will be preserved forever.

And that's most likely correct. Why is that so psychologically hard for you to deal with?

And I register my rejection of an outcome where nothing good gets preserved forever. My conscience will not let me content myself with such a probable outcome.

Then you need to train your conscience to align itself with reality.

Conscientious people need a forever preserver.

And poor people need a million dollars in the bank. . . but guess how far their need gets them?

The only choice is whether one believes such a preserver currently exists, or whether one realizes that s/he must work toward producing such a preserver. I have simply made the former choice.

"None of the above" is also a valid choice. Why do you not entertain it?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Yes, I too don't believe in creation ex nihilo. What's your point? I don't know if I agree with Hellings or not, but either way, I still don't see your point.

you said, "It didn't make sense to me that something non-deterministic could result from a totally deterministic universe", so the one that needs to explain is you. If God didn't create the Universe then what is the point of your argument?

You're right. I can't prove that "our world is not a matrix." So what? What's your point? Our world might be exactly what it seems to be, and there might be a deity controlling it. Our world might be a matrix. It seems much more productive to assume the former than the latter.

Why? Both are just unproven assumptions. You said, "I believed in God pretty much because I didn't see a good reason to conclude that there wasn't a God." I am simply saying that you can use the same argument to defend the Matrix.

Can you point me to what you're referring to here as "the illusion of God's presence, written by a neurologist"? For example, do you know the mentioned neurologist's name?.

Sure, his name is Dr. John C. Wathey
https://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Gods-Pr ... 1633880745

But if someone is not going to believe in the existence of such a God, what alternative does that someone have?

Cryonics! Cryonics is another unproven assumption. You could be a follower of Aubrey de grey, he doesn't promise you everlasting life, but he has beautiful ideas that can make you feel better. All just speculation, but it makes you feel good.

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Honestly I think the "evidences" for Moroni and the Golden Plates are stronger than the "evidences" for the resurrection of Jesus. I am not saying the evidence is good, I am only saying that it is better. Like it or not there is better documentation for Moroni than for the Resurrection of Jesus.

You agree? Seriously! the Evangelical apologists make LDS apologists look like Einstein.

[_honorentheos]

But if someone is not going to believe in the existence of such a God, what alternative does that someone have?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_qvy82U4RE

[_KevinSim]

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Honestly I think the "evidences" for Moroni and the Golden Plates are stronger than the "evidences" for the resurrection of Jesus. I am not saying the evidence is good, I am only saying that it is better. Like it or not there is better documentation for Moroni than for the Resurrection of Jesus.

You agree? Seriously! the Evangelical apologists make LDS apologists look like Einstein.

Wow, that's high praise coming from you, DT! (And yes, I did read that line about the evidence for Moroni not being good.)

If you're saying that I have no foundational logic to use as a base for my assertion that there is a God in control of this universe, who I can be certain wants us individually to know Her/His will, then I agree completely.

You have no foundational logic for any of your assertions. Period.

I do not contend that I "have no foundational logic for any of" my assertions. What's your point? Who cares? Your comments would be relevant if I had been attempting to convince someone that there is evidence that there is a good God who controls the universe. It has been a very long time since I attempted to do that (if I ever attempted to do that, which I kind of doubt). I was simply stating my position on God and my connection to the LDS Church so that people would not get the wrong idea when I started asking what the persuasive evidence was for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

But if someone is not going to believe in the existence of such a God, what alternative does that someone have? Someone who doesn't believe in anything might have the assurance that at least s/he is not wrong, but such a victory rings kind of hollow to me.

Your ability to contemplate looking gif seems to be absent.

Come again? Was that a typo, IHAQ? I mean, I for one have always thought that my "ability to contemplate looking gif" does indeed seem to be absent. In fact I don't remember ever contemplating looking gif. :)

The alternative to a belief in God is not someone who doesn't believe in anything. If you cannot comprehend that, then any discussion with you is completely futile.

IHAQ, did I ever say that the "alternative to a belief in God" is someone who doesn't believe in anything?

Reasonable, rational, objective enquiries into what is already known, can indeed produce a lot of positive results. But they are not the only things that result in positive results. Being based in reality is a good thing. But just as important as (or perhaps more so than) understanding the truth of the things that are, is understanding the truth about what things should be.

Reasonable, rational, objective enquiry based on what is already known is how you avoid baseless conclusions, confirmation bias, wishful thinking and la la land.

Well, that's kind of what I said, isn't it?

I look at the universe and make the observation that if someone doesn't take action to preserve some good things forever, then nothing good will be preserved forever.

Again the complete absence of an ability to comprehend a spectrum of options.

Ah, so you think there is a spectrum of things that might preserve some good things forever? Fine. I simply call any one of the objects in that spectrum, God. Why do you think that what I said indicates that I lack the "ability to comprehend a spectrum of options"?

My conscience will not let me content myself with such a probable outcome. Conscientious people need a forever preserver. The only choice is whether one believes such a preserver currently exists, or whether one realizes that s/he must work toward producing such a preserver. I have simply made the former choice.

That you cannot see the logical fallacy of these statements suggests you are perfectly suited to Mormonism.

IHAQ, it's an easy thing to tell someone they "cannot see the logical fallacy of" something they've said. It's somewhat more difficult to point out to them that how they are committing a logical fallacy. That you're taking the easy route is an indication to me that you don't really know I'm committing any logical fallacy at all. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry about that! I left out one very important word. I should have said, "But in the very beginning, there isn't another way of learning the truth" about God. We can't begin our knowledge about the will of God in our lives without input from God.

Do you think that that statement "is completely wrong, an entirely false premise"?

Absolutely. Because it is.

Why do you think it is "an entirely false premise"?

If you do think so, then are you aware of another way to start one's knowledge of the will of God in our lives? Going on the assumption that a deity in control of the universe exists, of course.

That's the point, you always start with a predetermined and baseless assumption.

You didn't answer my question.

You've decided there's a God for no other reason than that's what you want to believe. You could, on the same basis, start your logic flow by saying that a leprechaun is in control of the universe. The statements that follow from that will be just as logically sound.

What would be the point of saying "a leprechaun is in control of the universe"?

But if someone is not going to believe in the existence of such a God, what alternative does that someone have?

The alternative is simply not to believe in such a God. Easy peasy.

It's not easy. It's not easy at all. Not for a truly conscientious person.

You don't need to believe in God to be a conscientious person. A conscientious person certainly can be an atheist. It's just very clear to me, as I've already said, that if someone (or some group of people acting together) doesn't act to preserve some good things forever, then nothing good is going to last forever. A corollary to this is that if somebody doesn't find some way to stop it, the human race is eventually going to go extinct. If you want to really go overboard, you could postulate that maybe the human race is going to evolve into something else, but eventually that's going to go extinct too. There could be several iterations, several evolutions, but still, if something isn't done to stop it, the day will eventually come when every race that has had humanity as however distant an ancestor as it can have, will have gone extinct. The people (using that term broadly) in that last generation are real, authentic, valuable people, just as much as you or me. Can a conscientious person really pretend that those people don't matter? Don't we owe them some consideration?

Someone who doesn't believe in anything might have the assurance that at least s/he is not wrong, but such a victory rings kind of hollow to me.

It's not a "victory," hollow or otherwise. It's simply a conclusion. Or was your realization that Santa Claus isn't real a hollow victory?

Good point, Shades. I have a vivid memory of the moment I realized that Santa Claus wasn't real. It was very much the opposite of a hollow victory. My wife protested when I told my children that Santa Claus wasn't real, and my children cried for about a week straight, but it sure made my life a lot easier. I mean, think of all that money I had spent in past years buying Christmas gifts. Now I spend all of it on guns. That's just a hobby of mine. My wife keeps giving me flak about me leaving my guns where my children can get them. Can you believe that?

That's sarcasm, by the way. If my four-year-old grandson (that lives with me) at some future point asks me what the truth is about Santa Claus, I will tell him what I really believe, but for a few years now it may just turn out that he needs the idea of Santa Claus, not unlike the way that I believe conscientious people of any age need God, and for almost identical reasons I'm going to refrain from publishing for four or five-year-olds that there's no Santa Claus and I'm also going to actively proclaim that there is a God.

But just as important as (or perhaps more so than) understanding the truth of the things that are, is understanding the truth about what things should be.

Nowhere in the rule book does it say that anything should be something. Things simply are or are not.

Ah, so there's a rule book? I didn't know there was a rule book. Tell me more about it, please, Shades.

I look at the universe and make the observation that if someone doesn't take action to preserve some good things forever, then nothing good will be preserved forever.

And that's most likely correct. Why is that so psychologically hard for you to deal with?

It's that last generation that I mentioned up above, that I told you are completely decent, valid people, but they end up getting the shaft. I owe it to them to do something to keep their lives from being a total disaster. And so do you.

And I register my rejection of an outcome where nothing good gets preserved forever. My conscience will not let me content myself with such a probable outcome.

Then you need to train your conscience to align itself with reality.

Yeah, just ignore that last generation; I got it; they're scumbags anyhow. They're not worth worrying about. That, of course, is sarcasm again. There's not that much difference, in my opinion, between that attitude and the attitude of a lot of people who voted Donald Trump into office. One attitude doesn't care about a future generation of people (of whatever species); the other doesn't care about any race that doesn't live in the United States (or maybe it's worse than that; maybe it's any race that isn't white and doesn't live in the United States).

Conscientious people need a forever preserver.

And poor people need a million dollars in the bank. . . but guess how far their need gets them?

Do I need to mention Donald Trump again? The people in the Third World also need "a million dollars in the bank"; does that mean conscientious people in North America should ignore them?

The only choice is whether one believes such a preserver currently exists, or whether one realizes that s/he must work toward producing such a preserver. I have simply made the former choice.

"None of the above" is also a valid choice. Why do you not entertain it?

I do entertain it. I've actually thought about it quite a bit. If someone wants to choose none "of the above" I'm certainly not going to force him to attempt to work toward the benefit of some future generation. But there will come a day when that someone will eventually get old (assuming s/he doesn't die young), and perhaps s/he will feel the need to take advantage of whatever institutions society has provided for its senior members. Institutions run, largely, by younger people. Can that someone in clear conscience take advantage of those institutions when s/he knows that that future generation won't have a younger generation to take care of it, and when s/he realizes that s/he never tried to do something that might help them out?

[_Res Ipsa]

Kevin, I really don't understand.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe in trying to preserve some good things for our descendants. Like a livable climate. I don't understand why one needs to believe in God to believe in trying to preserve some good things.

As an aside, I have no reason to believe that I can preserve anything forever. We have a pretty good idea of what the end of the universe looks like. But that doesn't affect my desire to preserve some good things for our descendants.

[_Fence Sitter]

Kevin, I really don't understand.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe in trying to preserve some good things for our descendants. Like a livable climate. I don't understand why one needs to believe in God to believe in trying to preserve some good things.

As an aside, I have no reason to believe that I can preserve anything forever. We have a pretty good idea of what the end of the universe looks like. But that doesn't affect my desire to preserve some good things for our descendants.

Kevin is incapable of understand a morality not based on his concept of God, so he thinks old atheist are just freeloaders who will eventually doom society. .

He is also unable to define what "preserve good things forever" even means. Believe me we have tried.

/boggle

[_KevinSim]

Yes, I too don't believe in creation ex nihilo. What's your point? I don't know if I agree with Hellings or not, but either way, I still don't see your point.

you said, "It didn't make sense to me that something non-deterministic could result from a totally deterministic universe", so the one that needs to explain is you. If God didn't create the Universe then what is the point of your argument?

I was trying to explain why I believe in the existence of a God who is in control of the universe. What does the creation of the universe have to do with that?

You're right. I can't prove that "our world is not a matrix." So what? What's your point? Our world might be exactly what it seems to be, and there might be a deity controlling it. Our world might be a matrix. It seems much more productive to assume the former than the latter.

Why? Both are just unproven assumptions. You said, "I believed in God pretty much because I didn't see a good reason to conclude that there wasn't a God." I am simply saying that you can use the same argument to defend the Matrix.

Maybe I just don't understand the Matrix. Did the people who brought the Matrix into existence do it for the benefit of the people in the Matrix, and are they available to help those people should those people need help?

Can you point me to what you're referring to here as "the illusion of God's presence, written by a neurologist"? For example, do you know the mentioned neurologist's name?.

Sure, his name is Dr. John C. Wathey
https://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Gods-Pr ... 1633880745

Thanks! I was particularly interested in the place in the synopsis that said, "His book delves into the biological origins of this compelling feeling, attributing it to innate neural circuitry that evolved to promote the mother-child bond. Dr. Wathey, a veteran neuroscientist, argues that evolution has programmed the infant brain to expect the presence of a loving being who responds to the child's needs. As the infant grows into adulthood, this innate feeling is eventually transferred to the realm of religion, where it is reactivated through the symbols, imagery, and rituals of worship."

I recall sometime back someone posted that everyone when s/he is born is born an atheist, and s/he has to learn to believe in God. I responded that that wasn't true, that everyone when s/he is born is born a believer, and her/his mother is God. This book seems to be backing me up!

I'm not sure I want to shell out $12.99 to buy this book on Kindle, especially since it doesn't look like there's anything in the synopsis that I disagree with. I don't personally have a strong "intuitive feeling of God's presence." My reasons for believing in God are based on something else entirely. As I've stated in my post to Shades, I'm convinced that humanity needs a God. I also take a look at an abstract idea of what it might be required to bring a deity into existence, and I recognize such a task is beyond me. When I picture someone else in such a dilemma who throws up her/his hands and declares that s/he simply cannot take on the herculean task of bringing a deity into existence, I want to tell her/him, "Then you'd better hope such a deity already exists, because a deity needs to exist eventually." I guess I'm just following that same advice.

But if someone is not going to believe in the existence of such a God, what alternative does that someone have?

Cryonics! Cryonics is another unproven assumption. You could be a follower of Aubrey de grey, he doesn't promise you everlasting life, but he has beautiful ideas that can make you feel better. All just speculation, but it makes you feel good.

Does it satisfy one's conscience? Maybe it does; I don't know.

But if someone is not going to believe in the existence of such a God, what alternative does that someone have?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_qvy82U4RE

That was funny! Wow, there are a lot of funny youtube videos out there, I guess, if you know where to look.

I guess, in my broad definition of the term, I would say that the Rich character is on his way to becoming what I consider to be God. Morty is in distress, but Rick tries to make the best of his bizarre situation. If Rick keeps going in that direction, and finally figures out how to preserve some good things forever, then we'd be well advised to follow his advice.

[Guest]

I was trying to explain why I believe in the existence of a God who is in control of the universe. What does the creation of the universe have to do with that?

Okay, thanks for clarifying. It's the fundamental forces of physics that control the universe, so where is God's role?

Maybe I just don't understand the Matrix. Did the people who brought the Matrix into existence do it for the benefit of the people in the Matrix, and are they available to help those people should those people need help?

The Matrix is just an unproven idea, the existence of God is an unproven belief. The Matrix as an explanation is just as useful as saying that God did it.

My reasons for believing in God are based on something else entirely. As I've stated in my post to Shades, I'm convinced that humanity needs a God. .

but Max More (transhumanist) says the same thing about futuristic technology. Just because we need something doesn't mean it's true.

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking." - Carl Sagan

[_KevinSim]

Kevin, I really don't understand.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe in trying to preserve some good things for our descendants. Like a livable climate. I don't understand why one needs to believe in God to believe in trying to preserve some good things.

As an aside, I have no reason to believe that I can preserve anything forever. We have a pretty good idea of what the end of the universe looks like. But that doesn't affect my desire to preserve some good things for our descendants.

Res Ipsa, that's a great way to start. I commend you for your belief "in trying to preserve some good things for our descendants."

As far as your "pretty good idea of what the end of the universe looks like," I think you're selling humanity short. I think there's no telling what humans can accomplish, if they have enough time to work on the problems facing us, and we have, by some accounts 100 billion (and by others 10 trillion) years to work with. Do we know that this universe is the only universe in existence? Or the only universe suited for human life? Do we know that we will never find a way to dig a wormhole between this universe and another one, and by so doing extend the lifetime of all sentient species indefinitely? I don't think we know any of those things. So we shouldn't give up. And if it should just so turn out that we do so extend the lifetime of the species, then can that really be that far from what I've called the work of God?

Kevin, I really don't understand.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe in trying to preserve some good things for our descendants. Like a livable climate. I don't understand why one needs to believe in God to believe in trying to preserve some good things.

As an aside, I have no reason to believe that I can preserve anything forever. We have a pretty good idea of what the end of the universe looks like. But that doesn't affect my desire to preserve some good things for our descendants.

Kevin is incapable of understand a morality not based on his concept of God, so he thinks old atheist are just freeloaders who will eventually doom society. .

Ah, give me a break, Fence Sitter; get your facts straight. I do full well "understand a morality not based on" my concept of God. I think that morality is largely independent from God, and have thought so for a long time. I don't think old atheists "are just freeloaders who will eventually doom society." I just got done posting to Res Ipsa something to that effect.

He is also unable to define what "preserve good things forever" even means. Believe me we have tried.

Someone is only obligated to define what a term means if the people listening to her/him don't already understand what the term means. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if you, me, and everybody else on this forum didn't think that open, honest discussion was a good thing. People say that what good is needs to be defined, but it really doesn't. After all, saying that the term good needs to be defined is nothing more than saying that it would be a good thing if that term were defined. Does any serious poster respond to something a troll posts? What is a troll, other than someone who is not working toward the good of everyone else? On the other hand, if someone is a genuine poster, people are glad to post in response to the things s/he says. So are you really going to assert that you don't know what the term good means, and you need me to define it?