Hawking's Grand Design

[firstfloor]

Paul's motivation for appealing to evidence does not change that he is appealing to evidence.

Paul never met Jesus. He had a vision of Jesus and he refers to accounts of the resurrection that he claims were eye witness accounts. Is that compelling by modern standards of evidence? I would say not and yet the claim (of resurrection) is extraordinary (again by our standards). That is why, in my opinion, Christianity is a matter of faith rather than reason and the trend in some quarters to reason your way out of doubt by use of metaphysics is a misguided fad.

It is interesting and significant that Jesus, a Jew, lived and died a Jew and yet the Jews regard Him only as an eschatological prophet. Jesus never thought he was starting a new religion. If He ever does come back, I wonder what He would make of this new half Jewish religion called Christianity.

BTW no respect is asked for or expected. My approach to scripture is by modern Bible scholarship rather than theology which is why we will nearly always disagree on this sort of detail.

[Jedidiah]

[QUOTE=firstfloor;3422681This is very early Church, not fully fledged Christianity. [\quote]
What do you see different in "fully fledged Christianity" than what Paul taught?

[QUOTE=firstfloor;3422681I wonder if this is consistent with your understanding of the passage in Corinthians.[/QUOTE]
I understand it quite as Phoenix described.

[firstfloor]

[QUOTE=Jedidiah;3422716]

What do you see different in "fully fledged Christianity" than what Paul taught?

At one level it is s silly question because Paul is in the Christian Canon. More interesting is how Paul goes from Jew to founder of Christianity and how the same scripture, the Hebrew Bible, Paul’s Bible, comes to be read differently from the way Paul would have read it. Have you studied the history? My source is Shaye Cohen (Harvard) but still getting into fine detail.
BTW I am still in the dark re. your reading of 1 Cor 15:12 etc. What's the big secret?

[Cerebrum123]

[QUOTE=firstfloor;3422764]

At one level it is s silly question because Paul is in the Christian Canon. More interesting is how Paul goes from Jew to founder of Christianity and how the same scripture, the Hebrew Bible, Paul’s Bible, comes to be read differently from the way Paul would have read it. Have you studied the history? My source is Shaye Cohen (Harvard) but still getting into fine detail.
BTW I am still in the dark re. your reading of 1 Cor 15:12 etc. What's the big secret?

Paul wasn't the founder of Christianity, Christ was.

[firstfloor]

Paul wasn't the founder of Christianity, Christ was.

As Cohen frequently tells his students – we are swimming in very deep waters.

Cohen Lecture 27, notes page 26
Jesus:
In all four Gospels Jesus interacts primarily, if not exclusively, with Jews (aside, of course, from the soldiers and officials of the Roman government); his opponents and supporters alike are Jews.
No sign in any of the Gospels that Jesus founded, or intended to found, a new religion or a new people (Cohen refers to Morton Scott Enslin)
Closest that Jesus comes to indicating divine rejection of the Jewish people is in the Parable of
the Vineyard (Matthew 21:33-46) and the Parable of the Marriage Feast (Matthew 22:1-10).
These parables are probably about God’s rejection of Jewish leadership groups (Pharisees,
Priests, etc.), but they were understood by Christian exegetes to refer to the rejection of the
Jews.

BTW, I see the quote thing’s on the blink. J’s away to get his claw hammer and he’s going to whack you on the head with it.

[firstfloor]

J’s away to get his claw hammer and he’s going to whack you on the head with it.

Danger averted.

[Soyeong]

Paul never met Jesus. He had a vision of Jesus and he refers to accounts of the resurrection that he claims were eye witness accounts. Is that compelling by modern standards of evidence? I would say not and yet the claim (of resurrection) is extraordinary (again by our standards). That is why, in my opinion, Christianity is a matter of faith rather than reason and the trend in some quarters to reason your way out of doubt by use of metaphysics is a misguided fad.

You're basically saying that because you consider the event to be extraordinary, that evidence for the event no longer counts as evidence for the event. Derp. And if you think metaphysics is a fad, then you're obviously completely ignorant of it's long history. Derp derp.

It is interesting and significant that Jesus, a Jew, lived and died a Jew and yet the Jews regard Him only as an eschatological prophet. Jesus never thought he was starting a new religion. If He ever does come back, I wonder what He would make of this new half Jewish religion called Christianity.

Which is obviously false, because Jesus' followers were mostly made up of Jews who considered him to be God. Derp.

BTW no respect is asked for or expected. My approach to scripture is by modern Bible scholarship rather than theology which is why we will nearly always disagree on this sort of detail.

Never mind that theology includes modern Bible scholarship. Derpityderp.

If you don't want or expect respect, then I see no reason to give it to you or to discuss any of these matters farther with you. If you care to at least have an informed opinion about what it is you disagree with, then don't do a google search for the first site that bashes Feser on topic unrelated to metaphysics, but go read his work, go read Aquinas, then, provided you understand it, you should at least be able to should be able dismiss their metaphysics intelligently.

[firstfloor]

that evidence for the event no longer counts as evidence

What I said was that visions and second hand witness evidence is not compelling by modern standards. I did not say that it did not count as evidence. It clearly is evidence. The question then is it sufficient evidence considering the extraordinary nature of the resurrection. It seems sufficient for judge Soyeong. Case dismissed.

Jews who considered him to be God

It seems that you know nothing about Judaism. Jews believe on one monolithic God.

theology includes modern Bible scholarship

Theology reads the Bible as holy writ compliant with a particular doctrine or set of truth claims. Modern Bible scholarship treats the Bible just as any other ancient book/s. In other words, the Bible is sacred within a religious tradition but not in scholarship. This method allows insight into the nature of the religious tradition and allows the various truth claims (Judaism and Christianity make different truth claims) to be impartially examined and understood in their historical context.

It’s been a lot of fun talking to you. Thanks.

PS. There is a very good introduction to modern Bible scholarship in Cohen lecture 1 (Harvard - on ItunesU).

[robertb]

Finally, on page 180, we read this toward the end.

“Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in chapter 6.”

Yes. You read that right.

If gravity exists, then something exists, so there is not nothing.

Gravity also acts on something else so something else must exist, hence there must be at least one thing.

Further, if gravity is a relation between two things at least, there must be at least two things.

Not only that, we have the same mistake of treating nothing as if it was something.

Finally, how is it that something can create itself. Only entities that exist can do actions like create and if something does not exist, it cannot create.

Let’s look at the first part of this in relation to the First Way argument before we get to the issue of ‘nothing’. St. Aquinas makes the following argument:

It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Of course, St. Aquinas is referring to change in terms of act/potency. Therefore, per the First Way argument, there exists a first mover, pure actuality.
Now consider gravity itself and the seeming fact that gravity exists (being). Can’t we consider gravity itself to be pure act? Doesn’t gravity actualize the potential in all things, having no potentiality itself in that gravity itself cannot be moved?
You say:
If gravity exists, then something exists, so there is not nothing.
Of course, if God exists, then something exists, so there is, again, not nothing.

Gravity also acts on something else so something else must exist, hence there must be at least one thing.
Ex nihil, nihil fit. Of course, nothing has no potential to be actualized.
Further, if gravity is a relation between two things at least, there must be at least two things.
Thank God for quantum theory!
When Hawking uses the term nothing, he means something like the following:

Where did they [i.e., 1080 particles in the universe] all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.

When a Thomist uses the term nothing, what exactly does she mean?

[Soyeong]

What I said was that visions and second hand witness evidence is not compelling by modern standards. I did not say that it did not count as evidence. It clearly is evidence. The question then is it sufficient evidence considering the extraordinary nature of the resurrection. It seems sufficient for judge Soyeong. Case dismissed.

Ok, admitting that it is evidence is making progress, so I'll continue for now. Now, regardless whether or not you consider the evidence of over 500 witnesses to be sufficient to support the likelihood of the event beyond a reasonable doubt, the creed still consists of appealing to evidence, and is therefore evidence based. Will you now admit you were wrong?

It seems that you know nothing about Judaism. Jews believe on one monolithic God.

Nevermind that his disciples said he was the son of God, the case for a triune God can be made from the OT.

In Genesis 18, God appears in physical form and talks with Abraham. In Exodus 33, it says no one can see God and live. In Exodus 24, it says Moses and the elders saw the God of Israel. How do you explain people having encounters with God and yet no one has seen God? In Psalms 45, it says, "your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever" and in the next verse it says, "therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." How can he be God and yet God anoints him? In Isaiah 9, the son that is born will be called Mighty God. How can God be on his throne in heaven and an earthly king? The Bible also says that God's spirit is on the prophets. The only way to make sense of this is if God is a triune God who reigns in heaven, but at times reveals Himself through the son.

Theology reads the Bible as holy writ compliant with a particular doctrine or set of truth claims. Modern Bible scholarship treats the Bible just as any other ancient book/s. In other words, the Bible is sacred within a religious tradition but not in scholarship. This method allows insight into the nature of the religious tradition and allows the various truth claims (Judaism and Christianity make different truth claims) to be impartially examined and understood in their historical context.

Christians can read the Bible as holy writ, but that is not a necessary part of theology.

[firstfloor]

Ok, admitting that it is evidence is making progress

Dear Soyeong,
I see that I am going to have to put on my thinking cap. I will revert to you when I have considered the above. Don’t get your hopes up. BTW I fully realise that Christians can and do rationalise the Bible just as the Jews do with the same text (Hebrew scriptures/OT) and reach different conclusions. I have a neutral stance (viewing it all from 35,000 feet as Cohen says) and can see the merits and demerits of both arguments. Don’t wait up.

[firstfloor]

Dear Soyeong,
I have a preliminary question about your faith in supernatural evidence.

A fictitious scenario in June 2012: The morning after a night on the town you wake up without any recollection of where you have been or what you did in the last 12 hours. You are arrested and charged with murder. Under oath, the witness at your trial claims that an angel of the Lord visited her and told her that you murdered her husband. No other evidence is presented at your trial. The judge announces that you are found guilty and you are to be executed.

Was the verdict fair? If you think that supernatural claims should not be believed if they disadvantage you then I would claim that it is morally indefensible to believe a supernatural claim when it favours you.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Dear Soyeong,
I have a preliminary question about your faith in supernatural evidence.

A fictitious scenario in June 2012: The morning after a night on the town you wake up without any recollection of where you have been or what you did in the last 12 hours. You are arrested and charged with murder. Under oath, the witness at your trial claims that an angel of the Lord visited her and told her that you murdered her husband. No other evidence is presented at your trial. The judge announces that you are found guilty and you are to be executed.

Was the verdict fair? If you think that supernatural claims should not be believed if they disadvantage you then I would claim that it is morally indefensible to believe a supernatural claim when it favours you.

Because we know all claims of all types are absolutely equal in their validity.

[Mountain Man]

Such an analogy is nothing more than a straw man, a "he said, she said" scenario which is not an accurate parallel to the testimony of the evangelists which represents a number of credible witnesses, and even some hostile witnesses in the case of James, the brother of Jesus, and the Apostle Paul.

[Soyeong]

I have a preliminary question about your faith in supernatural evidence.

Evidence is not what you would call supernatural, but evidence can be in support of immaterial realities. Also, I don't trust evidence to do anything, so I don't have faith in evidence, much less supernatural evidence; I have faith in my ability to interpret evidence. Faith is the gap between thinking that the evidence strongly supports a certain event and trusting in your ability to interpret evidence thereby being certain that that event is what happened. This gap exists for all evidence, so all faith is evidence based. Although the gap for certain events is larger for some than others, depending on how strongly your interpretation of the evidence supports it, and takes more of a leap of faith to get across, no one would make that leap if there wasn't some sort of evidence on which to base it.

A fictitious scenario in June 2012: The morning after a night on the town you wake up without any recollection of where you have been or what you did in the last 12 hours. You are arrested and charged with murder. Under oath, the witness at your trial claims that an angel of the Lord visited her and told her that you murdered her husband. No other evidence is presented at your trial. The judge announces that you are found guilty and you are to be executed.

Was the verdict fair? If you think that supernatural claims should not be believed if they disadvantage you then I would claim that it is morally indefensible to believe a supernatural claim when it favours you.

The witness has 2nd hand evidence (that someone else told her) and circumstantial evidence (that I don't have an alibi) that can be interpreted to support the case that I murdered her husband. However, like any other 2nd hand evidence and circumstantial evidence, it is not strong enough to support a guilty verdict, even if it happened to be the case that I am guilty. On the other hand, over 500 primary witnesses who all saw me murder her husband would be strong enough to convict.