Flann 5 wrote:
So you know why your mythicist approach with me has been a dismal failure? And why everybody here trying to explain things to me have utterly failed.
Yes and you know too.
Anyone following this thread knows I don't just "deny,deny,deny" but give reasons and arguments against Christ myth theory and astro-theology. And that's what J.P.Holding does, showing the habitual failure of mythicists to provide primary sources for their claims while relying on the likes of Gerald Massey.
Now you know that's a lot of crap. It doesn't take a genius to see that Jesus is being likened to a solar deity in NT. "I am the light of the world"? In Matthew when Jesus dies, the earth goes dark? I mean, is this rocket science? And I don't need to quote Gerald Massey or anyone else. From now on, as I said, I'm going to hit you where you live. Go to the attachments and then tell me that Christians don't regard Jesus as the sun. You say we all know that you don't deny deny deny? Okay then, let's see you and Mr. Holding not deny deny deny your way out of this one.
He also demonstrates the obvious absurdity and forced nature of the astro-theological applications to the gospel narratives. Ad Hominem's don't refute his arguments.
I just gave you two examples from the narratives.
Obviously you want to avoid applying what was your astrological slant on Paul's words. Why? Because as Holding shows it's ridiculous when it's advocates actually do this.
Sure it is.
I understand very well these astro-theological interpretations, but they are not the masterpiece violin concerto's you say they are.
No, you don't understand because you don't want to. You've heard them, that's all, and then your deny reflex kicks in and you desperately google up another Holding apologetic special that nobody but Christians put any stock in.
Again, you were the one trying to say Paul was talking about gnostic archons and ancient solar deities. I just showed that he definitely was not, but the opposite. In response like a child, you don't want to play that game or tune any more.
For once, you're right. I don't.
You are correct D.B. that the passage says the star moved,and I was wrong to suggest it didn't. Henry Morris in his article suggested it didn't say that it moved, but I should have checked for myself.
You should do the same before linking us up to Holding. Sorry, ad hominem attack.
There are some possible naturalistic explanations.
No, there aren't. You're putting your faith in crap that was written by people who, as Lewis Black so sagely put it, were ten hairs away from being a baboon. So don't act so surprised to find yourself in the wrong. I would say get used to it.
I don't think them absolutely necessary as I don't share your worldview and wouldn't feel obliged to explain the resurrection of Christ, or the glory of the Lord that shone around at the nativity in a naturalistic way.
Translation: It was a miracle, folks! God can do anything he wants to!
Why can't you just admit the account cannot be true as written? Oh, that would be because then you're opening the door to wondering we should believe anything in those stories. Welcome to my world.
The narrative says that the star had appeared to the magi,strongly implying it had not been there before this.
This at least says it wasn't one of the usual stars they normally saw.
Weren't you the one who referred me to a link from ICR saying it was supernova? I guess you dropped it when I pointed out that supernovas don't through move the skies and then stop anymore than regular stars to.
The usual English translation is "We have seen his star in the east." It's reasonable to accept the translation but a literal translation is; "We have seen his star in it's rising."
There are various naturalistic theories such as wandering stars,a super nova or a comet. One that may be a good one is a comet which Colin Nicholl has written a book on,and seems well researched.
So the Magi were following a rising star?? Boy, were they dumb!
I've seen two comets in my life and I'd have to conclude that if the Magi--superb astronomers in their day--didn't know a comet from a star or a supernova, they need to go back to astronomy 101. And have you ever seen a comet. Flann? They move so slowly that it takes several days to even plot its direction with the naked eye. And even if it moved with any real speed at all, it doesn't then suddenly stop. No cigar for you.
Whether the magi would call a comet a star, I don't know. Apparently ancient Chinese astronomers did refer to comets at times as new stars or guest stars which they also did for super nova.
The Chinese were better astronomers than the Magi were. If the Magi knew the difference, the Chinese certainly knew it.
In any case here's Nicholl discussing his book and ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mT-8O8S_Fw
Nicholl actually ties his comet explanation for the star of Bethlehem in with Revelation 12 and gives an astrological interpretation for Rev.12. Whether he is right about the comet I'm not sure, but I part company with him on his interpretation of Revelation on exegetical grounds.
FLANN! Comets don't move through the sky and then stop!! For someone who claims he has a no reputation for denial, you're doing a bang-up job and of not proving it!
I don't see how the singularity could have an infinite past. This explodes into our universe. An infinite past can never reach the point where it does this. It just can't get there from an infinite past.
Since there was no time before the Big Bang, such speculation on your part is just that speculation. It's not an infinite past until time comes about. Before that, it's just indefinable.
How could time be a loop? Landroid says the latest view is that the universe is heading for an eternal state of slowly vibrating strings if I remember right, so no repeat performances or bounces.
None of this is proven, Flann. It's all speculation. There may be no repeat performance but then again there may be. All astrophysicists do is gather what data they can and try to guesstimate what's happening. We know so very little that we end up revising our theories every few years. There is no evidence whatsoever that time is circular, it's just something some astrophysicists came up with to caution others not to jump onto "The Big Bang is the beginning of everything" bandwagon. Why? Because nobody knows, Flann. Not even you!
The universe is contingent not necessary,I agree. The question is contingent on what? If it's not a necessary cause for it's existence then why does it exist rather than another or none?
Obviously, it's supposed to be contingent on the will of god. But that god willed it means it had to have happened at a certain moment. There had to be a moment when God decided to will the universe into existence. That it exists the way it does or exists at all is why its called contingent--it exists but it could as well not have but is entirely dependent on the conditions that preceded it. As I pointed out, once we admit the universe is contingent and there had to be a moment when God decided to create it, then there had to another moment prior to that where god a had a thought that led him to think about creating the universe but before that God had to have had a thought that led to him having a thought that led to him thinking about creating a universe and so on. And since your god is eternal, this chain of thoughts continues ad infinitum. Saying god is eternal works against itself. In trying to prove such a god created the universe, you end up having to admit that he didn't.
The only necessary cause and condition is the existence of God himself.
According to this argument, yes, God is the only necessary cause. The problem is, there is no such thing as a necessary cause. We suppose it only to account for God. It is entirely an ad hoc proposition. When a proposal is ad hoc it has very little chance of being true.
The relationship of God to time is not a simple question. My view is that God is bound by neither time or space and created time,space and the universe.
Again, to act BEFORE there was time is completely outside our experience and not anything we can imagine. It's completely divorced from our universe and so it becomes questionable that such a God could have created our universe.
We tend to think from a materialistic perspective of time beginning with the big bang but God created angels before this and they exist in time.
That's obviously a totally subjective statement and no one is required to believe it--not even you.
Since God is not bound by time there is no temporal regress with God in creating anything. I know you don't believe the bible but when Christ ascended to heaven,I don't imagine he had to travel for light years at the speed of light to get beyond the known universe to heaven.
To say God is not bound by time is to posit the existence of a being that cannot be imagined except as an abstract exercise. Time and space are one in the same. If God is unbounded by time, he's unbounded by space. What does that even mean?? As for how Christ ascended to heaven, we're going to discuss that in a little bit.
Time is relative and if God created everything he's certainly not bound by these things.
Time was created by the Big Bang. God didn't create it. I can accept on purely speculative reasons that God is unbounded by time because he somehow preceded it but he didn't create time.
O.K. D.B. but are you saying that the universe has no cause? That doesn't seem reasonable. No cause for the constituent material of the singular state? And voila! it just created physical laws and order by random explosion.
Since all the physical laws we know of did not exist at the Big Bang but only after then we have no reason to believe the universe was caused. The universe and time sprang into existence at the same instant. They're not caused because nothing that existed before was in any way connected to it and can't measured or tested in any way.
Hawking cuts out time prior to the big bang but surely there is a causal connection to the singular state and constituents of dense matter for the explosion?
Well, if you can establish what they are, tell Hawking and you'll likely become a candidate for a Nobel prize.
To say it can't be measured is not the same as saying there is no causal connection.
You can when there was no time. Cause-and-effect is bound up inextricably with time. We can't separate them. There is always a cause that occurs in one moment and then the effect in a subsequent moment. Now how does cause-and-effect work when there is no such thing as time? How you do you measure that? How can you even say that it is cause-and-effect since it would be unrecognizable as such? An an example, I light a candle and it burns to a nub in 5 minutes. That's cause-and-effect. if I light a candle and it melts to a numb at the exact instant I lit it, how could that be cause-and-effect? The heat had no time to melt the candle and the candle had no time to melt. So is that causality? Not in my book. But then my book isn't the bible.
Nothing caused the big bang? What was the something indefinable and not measurable,and where did it come from D.B.? This looks similar to Krauss' sleight of hand except you are substituting a completely vague something, for nothing.
See my above comment.