On Christ's Passion

[billhicksmostfunny]

Anything Nameable exists finitely within knowledge and with the Infinite as its limit. The Infinite "exists" insofar as it is necessarily a determinant of anything knowable.

The infinite is not a limit dude. Infinite has no limit. It is limitless, therefore how could you say the infinite is a limit.

If you still insist on calling it a limit, fine. It is a limit, one you cannot define, b/c it goes on forever. Therefore, beautiful, you got yourself a nice limit that you cannot define. Just like you cannot define God. Which leads us to your next mind-bending statement.........

If you were paying attention, you'd know that I would have to say to this, "Since Logos is Infinite, God necessarily both must exist and not exist."

I guess it wouldn't change your mind none for me to point out the blaringly obvious contradiction contained within this statement. It is ultimately just the most basest form of a confused semi-god believer. Which are you by the way? Even I cannot figure this out? Do you believe god exists or what? The contradictions you endorse lead me to believe you do believe in a creator but your statements are quite confusing.

While we are on the subject, I couldn't help thinking of this one so I'd just like to throw it out there: If any of you faithful believers out there can explain it, I'd like to hear it.

If God is all-powerful (he created the universe after all didn't he?) can he create a boulder that is so heavy even he cannot lift it???

[billhicksmostfunny]

How was it resolved . . someone help me out here . . something about it being an durian question trying to mix the metaphysical with the physical? Something like that?

Could you put your foot further into your mouth? You are the one trying to mix the physical and metaphysical!

And yes it is an durian question. Before it became an durian question though, it needed an durian to presuppose an all-powerful god. Once that durian did that, the contradictions and hypocrisy's naturally followed by the many from there. Good thing you were able to recognize it as an durian question though. What do they say about it takes one to know one?

Keep pointing out that I am younger than you are, even though you have no idea of my actual age. If you want to know, why don't you just ask? You never asked if I was an atheist either, you just assumed that. Over on the AK forum you had me pegged as a materialist and an atheist quite early while never bothering to ask. I, of course, did not deny the charge and actually embraced it, while all along you never quite came out and labeled your exact worldview now did you? So what is it Marcus? How do you identify? Christian? Catholic? Calvinist? Poly-Theist? Mono-Theist? Please do tell, I am asking?

And if I am younger than you (which is a good possibility), why should that matter? If anything it would be a disadvantage to you. You know the old adage --- out with the old, in the new? Everyone hits there peak sooner or later and the older you get the closer you are. Old dogs do learn new tricks, but it ain't easy........it ain't easy........young dogs already know the new tricks by the time the older one are catching on.........

[noddy]

its a difficult read for me but i think (?) dioscuri is getting at the infinite amount of space between 0 and 1 and perhaps even the infinitely small size of 1 itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes The dichotomy paradox

Zeno's arguments are perhaps the first examples of a method of proof called reductio ad absurdum also known as proof by contradiction. They are also credited as a source of the dialectic method used by Socrates.[2]
Some mathematicians, such as Carl Boyer, hold that Zeno's paradoxes are simply mathematical problems, for which modern calculus provides a mathematical solution.[3] Some philosophers, however, say that Zeno's paradoxes and their variations (see Thomson's lamp) remain relevant metaphysical problems

[Typhoon]

If you understand the concept of infinity it is quickly self-evident that there is not an infinite amount of existing matter/beings/things in the universe. . .

And if you understood the concept of infinity, it is quickly self-evident that existing matter is infinite.

No.

Yes.

What we currently know

WP: Matter content of the observable universe

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10^80

10^80 is a very large but finite number.

[Dioscuri]

Anything Nameable exists finitely within knowledge and with the Infinite as its limit. The Infinite "exists" insofar as it is necessarily a determinant of anything knowable.

The infinite is not a limit dude. Infinite has no limit. It is limitless, therefore how could you say the infinite is a limit.

If you still insist on calling it a limit, fine. It is a limit, one you cannot define, b/c it goes on forever. Therefore, beautiful, you got yourself a nice limit that you cannot define. Just like you cannot define God.

You didn't Google "set theory" did you? Or you did but lost interest in 20 seconds.

This will blow your mind Bill, but there are an infinite variety of different kinds of infinite quantity, and it is even proveable that certain types of Infinity are larger and others are smaller. We've had very capable people handling this line of inquiry for well over a century.

When I say "B is the limit of A", "limit" denotes a range of reference or meaning for A that is not allowed; "off-limits" so to speak. Reread what I wrote with that definition in mind.

Which leads us to your next mind-bending statement.........

If you were paying attention, you'd know that I would have to say to this, "Since Logos is Infinite, God necessarily both must exist and not exist."

I guess it wouldn't change your mind none for me to point out the blaringly obvious contradiction contained within this statement. It is ultimately just the most basest form of a confused semi-god believer. Which are you by the way? Even I cannot figure this out? Do you believe god exists or what? The contradictions you endorse lead me to believe you do believe in a creator but your statements are quite confusing.

We are a caution, aren't we? We admit the discourse makes demands to some extent, but it is all in proper English. I do not feel the need to explain myself to you further.

While we are on the subject, I couldn't help thinking of this one so I'd just like to throw it out there: If any of you faithful believers out there can explain it, I'd like to hear it.

If God is all-powerful (he created the universe after all didn't he?) can he create a boulder that is so heavy even he cannot lift it???

With some quiet reflection, you will find that I have already answered this question in a quite thorough manner.

[billhicksmostfunny]

its a difficult read for me but i think (?) dioscuri is getting at the infinite amount of space between 0 and 1 and perhaps even the infinitely small size of 1 itself.

I was thinking the same thing. And it is a paradox.

If you drop a basketball from 4 feet off the ground, the ball first must fall 1/2 way to the ground which would locate the ball at 2 feet. Then it must fall 1/2 to the ground again which we could locate at 1 foot above the ground. Then 6 inches, then 3 inches, 1.5 inches, etc, etc, according to this brilliant vision of infinity the basketball will never reach the ground. Now I don't know about you guys but I live in a world where the ball bounces.

It is a paradox, that is the perfect thing to call it. Or a contradiction.......

[billhicksmostfunny]

You didn't Google "set theory" did you? Or you did but lost interest in 20 seconds.

Lol, I googled it. It took more like 2 mins and 20 seconds and then I lost interest.
I read a few things on it. It is out there, and would be complicated to understand completely, but I think I get the gist of it. Maybe not, I have been wrong before. Wouldn't be the first time......

This will blow your mind Bill, but there are an infinite variety of different kinds of infinite quantity, and it is even proveable that certain types of Infinity are larger and others are smaller.

I understand the different types of infinities now. But they are all theoretical, that is the problem. In reality there are no infinities. Only on paper. Big difference btw theoretical physics and applied physics and I think the same applies here. On paper this may work all fine and dandy, but go try it go in the real world and what happens?

I do not feel the need to explain myself to you further.

You don't need to, but I did ask nicely. Something to hide perhaps? Or do you just prefer to perform this debate in the abstract?

With some quiet reflection, you will find that I have already answered this question in a quite thorough manner.

Yes I suppose so, but don't you just want to come out and scream it? You are a god is everywhere type person. Very vague, very metaphorical, could meaning anything at all, or nothing at all. Or am I wrong? I suppose if you still insist on leaving all of this so vague I must be pretty close to being right?

[Typhoon]

. . . Big difference btw theoretical physics and applied physics . . .

No.

[Demon of Undoing]

...or an attempt to put a faulty template on a wholly indifferent reality.

No, the ball must not fall half way to the ground. It must fall according to the observed laws of physics. Zeno pulled a fraction out of his ass and called it wisdom. It's little moments in philosophical history like this that I wish a roshi was there to drop a bowling ball square on that homo olive muncher's foot.

No offense to the gheys. The Freddie Mercury set is smart enough to smell BS, too.

And Bill is at least half right. If God exists, he has to deal with heavy rocks. If he's a figment of your metaphor of a racial archetype of a legend, well, I reckon he can do whatever the hell he likes.

[noddy]

philosophobating 101

It's little moments in philosophical history like this that I wish a roshi was there to drop a bowling ball square on that homo olive muncher's foot.

According to Simplicius, Diogenes the Cynic said nothing upon hearing Zeno's arguments, but stood up and walked, in order to demonstrate the falsity of Zeno's conclusions

[Dioscuri]

I understand the different types of infinities now. But they are all theoretical, that is the problem. In reality there are no infinities. Only on paper. Big difference btw theoretical physics and applied physics and I think the same applies here. On paper this may work all fine and dandy, but go try it go in the real world and what happens?

I do.

[Ibrahim]

. . . The majority of physicists studying cosmology (and Colonel Sun can confirm or correct this for me) agree that matter in the universe is finite.

What we currently know

Edit: What? My post changed. Anyway the information is there.

Reply: Sorry, hit "Edit" instead of "Quote" by mistake. _(__)_

[billhicksmostfunny]

No, the ball must not fall half way to the ground. It must fall according to the observed laws of physics.

Actually it does both. The ball falls one way according to the mathematician/philosopher/metaphysician/believer and the ball falls another way according to the laws of physics. The ball falls both ways but only one way wins out. The mathematician says look infinity, "It works great on paper, it must make sense!". The philosopher/metaphysician/believer says look, "It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). God exists as an idea in the mind. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God exists." The believer says look, "It works great in my mind, it must make sense!" Unfortunately these scenarios are trumped each and every time by the laws of physics. The great question is how these people are able to ignore the laws of physics winning every time and still think they are on the right track?

It's little moments in philosophical history like this that I wish a roshi was there to drop a bowling ball square on that homo olive muncher's foot.

This would be quite appropriate. A wake up call of the sort that can't be ignored!

If God exists, he has to deal with heavy rocks.

Also has to deal with preponderance of evil, little kids dying of cancer, poor people getting constantly screwed, racism, genocide, murder, rape, genital mutilation, etc, etc, etc,........but it seems he is unable to lift a single heavy rock so how can you expect him to deal with things of this nature?

[cdgt]

Could the discussion depart any further from the OP?

Or has it reached the point of inifinite departure?

[Demon of Undoing]

Well, in fairness, it is relevant.

The concern is very much how much of the Passion exists in reality. Assuming the physical facts as presented in the NT, was Jesus actually, physically raised? Or is this another one of those, " Well, it's a silly question, it's real in real ways but it's not infinite or defined" kind of moments? Because I argue this:

1) Absent the dude coming back and talking about being in a Hades of eternal torment, I will assume that " dead" meant " dead", and not alive but in the Dante version of hell. This comforts me. If the evidence tells me there is such a cruel God as to switch meanings retroactively on an unknowing race of beings of diminished capacity, I will believe it. But I don't see it.

Also

2) If Jesus did come back in a very physical way, then we are no longer positing a philosopher's god, but an historian's God, a physicist's God, a forensic pathologist's God. Those questions about rocks and Icthyosis suddenly are no longer abstract arguments. Instead, they are very real accusations that yes, the Almighty owes us, at least if he wants to claim justice.

Also also

3). If there was no empty tomb, this is the stupidest argument we could possibly have.


I am the final evolution of the fundamentalist literalist. I have no use for the philosopher's god. I want the God of plagues and locusts, or we need to all shut up and learn more math.

[Dioscuri]

...or an attempt to put a faulty template on a wholly indifferent reality.

No, the ball must not fall half way to the ground. It must fall according to the observed laws of physics. Zeno pulled a fraction out of his ass and called it wisdom. It's little moments in philosophical history like this that I wish a roshi was there to drop a bowling ball square on that homo olive muncher's foot.

Of course there's an infinite quantity within the distance of a millimeter. Even infinite quantities can be counted as one and traversed and trifled with as finitely as you please. But if your whole being and world, the domain of that which appears as One(s) to you, was nameable only within that millimeter, then it is your limit. That which is Nameable as One is traversable and transcendable. That which is not nameable is the absolute containment and limit of our existence.

So Zeno was quite right, and his "mistake" illustrates it, that the Infinite is the term that terminally divides (and indissoluably binds) what we take for actuality from/to the impossible.


To prevent this argument from entering a vicious circle, I think we can more succinctly describe the differences here as being about the ability or inability to name the Universe as "One".

The dividing line is between those who are compelled to correlate the One to the Finite, and those who are compelled to correlate the One to the Infinite.

I, of course, have been clear that I consider the existence of One(s) in this our "empirical reality" to mathematically necessitate the existence of Infinity.

But let us consider the opposite decision. Let us say that the Infinite is purely "imaginary" and that the Finite is all. This would mean that "the universe" is the name for the set that collects everything; every particle, concept, name, and number that is possible in all of time bears a relation of containment to "the universe." "The universe" is the set of all sets.

There has, for some time, been a problem with this. It is known as Russell's Paradox.

In short, Russell demonstrates that there can be no set of all sets. Or rather, there can, but such a set would contain contradictions of self-reference that cause language to break, which thwarts the very notion of "universe" and wrecks the coherence of stating that reality is finite. Because we can only "know" that reality is finite if we can trust that "finite" means precisely that all reality is countable in a set. But logic breaks down before you can reach such a set; therefore it is logically impossible for the finitude of reality to be known.


Ball's in your court, Finitarians.

[billhicksmostfunny]

Demon ---

I vote for number 3.

I am the final evolution of the fundamentalist literalist. I have no use for the philosopher's god. I want the God of plagues and locusts, or we need to all shut up and learn more math.

Lol! This is funny...........but you are not the final evolution. Evolution is not done with you yet.

And you may have no use for the philosopher's god, but that is all you are gonna get anymore nowadays. They retired the god of the plagues and locusts long ago. They have grown more sophisticated by necessity...........almost sophisticated enough to accept contraceptives, same sex marriage, and evolution (but only if it is directed by God). But it is a long slow process....

[noddy]

where do the pathetic little souls that dont like having opinions on stuff they dont have information on fit in this finite/infinite splittage ?

the edge of the universe we cant see cause its rushing away faster than the light comes back (or something like that) ?
the box this universe is in, is it endless or does it twist around on itself in some funky 4d pattern people have drawn pretty shadow pictures of ?
the nature of this box, is it the only box ? that string theory about membranes and boxes bouncing into each other triggering big bangs ?

the only rational answer imho is "dunno, but its fun finding out".

as to how THAT ties back into the passion of the christ, well, my viewpoint on things i only get from other humans as opinions is quite clear, i think daemon of undoing (deliberate garbage collector joke alert) is quite right .. i take the lot of it as metaphor because id need the literal to make me change my opinion.

[Marcus]

To prevent this argument from entering a vicious circle, I think we can more succinctly describe the differences here as being about the ability or inability to name the Universe as "One".

The dividing line is between those who are compelled to correlate the One to the Finite, and those who are compelled to correlate the One to the Infinite.

An interesting way to put it. I wouldn't have imagined the first option intellectually possible.

[cdgt]

...

as to how THAT ties back into the passion of the christ, well, my viewpoint on things i only get from other humans as opinions is quite clear, i think daemon of undoing (deliberate garbage collector joke alert)

is quite right .. i take the lot of it as metaphor because id need the literal to make me change my opinion.

If Jesus did come back in a very physical way, then we are no longer positing a philosopher's god, but an historian's God, a physicist's God, a forensic pathologist's God. Those questions about rocks and Icthyosis suddenly are no longer abstract arguments. Instead, they are very real accusations that yes, the Almighty owes us, at least if he wants to claim justice.

Well, the literal based on physics and forensic pathology is a tad difficult to obtain 2,000 years or so afterwards. The historian's God is nearer the mark, it seems to me. IIRC, a number of folks who claim to have seen a resurrected Jesus endured their own mini-passions over the veracity of the matter. Probably the best you're going to get, and frankly, more brutally honest than professional opinions of physicists and forensic pathologists. But there remains sufficient wiggle-room that allows one to cling to the god of empiricism and not the god of death and suffering--as well as resurrection and life.

But ... if there was empirical proof that would then compel belief, wouldn't we complain about a god who compels, no?

If there was no empty tomb, this is the stupidest argument we could possibly have.

Agreed.

[Ibrahim]

Thinking of Jesus as a prophet instead of messiah relieves a lot of this stress.

[Marcus]

Thinking of Jesus as a prophet instead of messiah relieves a lot of this stress.

But then it wouldn't be Christianity, would it? Or is that the point?

[Ibrahim]

Thinking of Jesus as a prophet instead of messiah relieves a lot of this stress.

But then it wouldn't be Christianity, would it? Or is that the point?

Christianity (according to some in this thread) relies on a specific, literal miracle which is theoretically falsifiable. It potentially distracts from the message, which should be more important.

[Demon of Undoing]

CG

Well, the literal based on physics and forensic pathology is a tad difficult to obtain 2,000 years or so afterwards.

Do not misunderstand me; I don't ask for certainty or else I will take my ball and go home. I don't ask for certainty, period. I just want to establish something very simple. It seems the only time these things that I was raised to take as acts of a miraculous God are even touched upon is through a screen of soft-shoe about nonexistence being important. Apparently, the god under discussion isn't going to have to answer these paradoxes because it's mixing religion and physics.

Poo.

If religion doesn't impact physics, it's Onanistic philosramblings, and I have beer to drink.

[Marcus]

Thinking of Jesus as a prophet instead of messiah relieves a lot of this stress.

But then it wouldn't be Christianity, would it? Or is that the point?

Christianity (according to some in this thread) relies on a specific, literal miracle which is theoretically falsifiable. It potentially distracts from the message, which should be more important.

Christianity, according to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the unanimous confession of the ecumenical creeds is that miracle and message in the person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

But what would an unbeliever, particularly a Muslim, know of that?

I'd suggest you content yourself with commenting on the message of Islam and the prophet Muhammed, something which you theoretically know something about, and leave the Christian message of the Messiah to the Christians.

To each his own . . .