For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
Wanderobo Axolotl – “Why are you saying it is a myth? I thought quantum mechanics both in theory and in experiment demonstrated conclusively that at the submicroscopic level ‘observations’ or ‘subjectivity’ changes what has not yet been into what it is but only when it is observed. “
Since there is this phenomena of the observer as well as that which is observed, an understanding of reality must accommodate it.
A purely objective universe without awareness does not exist.
I also do not subscribe to “supernatural” anything. Reality and nature are the same thing.
I started to read about this “Schrodinger’s cat” business but decided not to court the headache. Sorry, though if you want to paraphrase for me, how it might relate to my statements above, I will happily study on that.
brmckay – ” … Especially if the person explaining the non existence of “Jesus” is the same one who established the existence of “Jesus” in the first place. (or at least participated in the process.)”
Carol Lynn – “I call bullshit. Very few children are traumatized by finding out that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are not real. The parents certainly participated in establishing the existence of these entities in their children’s minds. Why should ‘Jesus’ get any more traction if a non-believing parent explains that while many people believe that he’s real, there’s no actual evidence that any gods exist? Religious traditions can be fun to participate in, and there is no need to stop the fun parts, but so is putting baby teeth under a pillow for the Tooth Fairy to exchange for cash.
I think formal apologetics may be beyond a five year old, but teaching kids to spot logical fallacies is always a good idea and can start at a young age.”
Not sure which aspect of my comment you consider bullshit.
That it is “hard” to explain. Or, that the “non-existence” of the beloved old friend is an unwarranted assumption.
You realize of course, that the cultivation of the Santa Claus and Easter Bunny storylines are conscious acts of pretend on the part of the parents.
On the other hand…
The cultivation of a mythic framework for contemplation and reverence in ones offspring is entirely different.
It is something we do to give them context for their experience, and a sense of meaning.
One wants to assume, that the parent at least desires, to transmit something close to what they understand, in real time.
Ryan Bell (responding to Paul) – “The Christians that got involved in abolition, and even lead the movement, did so right as the culture was starting to question slavery, not because of the Bible or anything God has revealed.”
When you were religious, and there was a need for character transformation, did you really imagine God as an old guy in the sky, pointing out chapter and verse in a book to make it happen?
Why would you do that now? (even in the negative)
DavidMHart – ” i.e. are you claiming that the probability of his existence is exactly 50%? And would you apply that same estimate to other legendary or divine entities, like the Angel Moroni, Melek Taus or Quetzalcoatl? What are you basing your probability estimates on?”
My statement was definitely more poetical than mathematical in nature.
We all have much to learn. And my preference is to leave the doors wide open.
Trusting to potential and innate genius. Which “hath brought us safe thus far”.
And yes, I have not expressed a localized ownership of these qualities. (i.e. Not said, “our potential and innate genius”. Or assigned them to Jesus or Quetzalcoatl.)
DavidMHart – “Okay, I hope this doesn’t come across as rude, but I’m having trouble making sense of what you’re saying here. Are you saying that the existence of Jesus is exactly as likely as his non-existence? If not, what did you mean by ‘Neither existence or non-existence is more certain than the other’?
As for leaving doors wide open, sure I have no problem with that in principle, but where two claims are incompatible, then they eat up two different chunks of probability mass. If A and B are the only two logical possibilities, you cannot raise your likelihood estimate of A without lowering your likelihood estimate of B, since the total combined probability is at most 100%. We may be mistaken in our probability estimates, but at least we are keeping ourselves intellectually honest if we make sure that the combined sum doesn’t exceed certainty – I.e. it cannot be simultaneously very likely that Jesus exists and very likely that he doesn’t. So if your estimate is not 50/50, despite what your comment seemed to imply, then I’d be curious as to what your estimate actually is of the likelihood that Jesus exists.”
Let’s not hurt ourselves here. Our standards, criteria and lexicons are too far apart.
But I will ask, What do you mean by “Jesus existing”?
Or, even more to the point, what does it mean to exist, and from whose vantage point is existence interpreted?
Myself, I honor the horizon line. Logic and reason can only go so far.
(Responding to DavidMHart)
I can’t assume what degree of theological sophistication was in play.
Some people have indeed created a deity out of Jesus, but I consider that excessively primitive.
On the other hand, I have no problem interpreting his statement that “I and the Father are One”.
And, since the term “Father” here, references God. The question of existence and non-existence is moot. God being Existence and the potential of it. Including that which exists in the relative sense of the word. (i.e. our experience of things.)
In other words the life of the carpenter/messiah shows us the TRUTH of our own Self.
I’m not trying to be evasive, just to honestly represent this view.
I’ll refer the thread back to the original comment now. I know I’m starting to loose track of the context for all these quotes. Perhaps others are as well.
Carol Lynn – “Children can outgrow Jesus as they get older, exactly the same way we all understand they will outgrow Santa.”
You assume they should. Right? (So why am I being called “narrow-minded”?)
To be clear, I am aware that there are as many storylines going on about Jesus as there are people who have heard the name.
Yours being one of them.
Personally, I find the cacophony of opinion very distracting, and usually frequent other pastures.
(Responding to DavidMHart)
I get the impression that your experience of religious thought is limited largely to the Abrahamic traditions and primarily Christianity.
That would NOT be the case with me. I have much more affinity to those traditions that reduce the impact of dualistic thinking on our experience.
Therefore the confusion that you describe is probably a result of my unfamiliar monism.
For some reason you are strategically keeping me off balance with unacknowledged points.
I have a question for YOU. Why would one consider a multitude of universes rather than the aggregate of All as Universe?
Infinitude is the whole point. It brings everything into focus.