ObserveandReport Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Thought this was funny. 1. Miracles are extraordinarily uncommon phenomena. 2. Mistakes of humans interpreting their experiences are very common. 3. Humans lying about their experiences are very common. 4. If something is more common, it is more likely to occur. 5. Mistake and lying are far more likely to occur than miracles (by 1-4). 6. Sentient beings using technology to create aberrations in the laws of nature is far more common than natural laws spontaneously breaking down. (CERN vs. telekinesis ) 7. If a human is not mistaken or lying about a miracle’s occurrence, it is more likely than not that a sentient being using advanced technology is responsible (by 5 and 6). 8. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. 9. Magic is indistinguishable from the laws of nature spontaneously breaking down. 10.If a human is not mistaken or lying about a miracle’s occurrence, it is more likely than not that a sentient being with advanced technology is responsible and that it is indistinguishable from magic (by 7-9). 11.There were no sentient beings from Earth, leading up to the miracles of the Bible, with sufficiently advanced technology to produce an aberration in the laws of nature. 12.The cause of the miracles in the Bible was most likely sentient beings not from Earth, if they happened at all (by 10 and 11). 13.A sentient being not from Earth is an alien. 14.If Jesus was responsible for miracles of the bible, he was most likely an Alien and not using magic (by 10 - 13). Give a if you liked it/thought it was funny. Cheers! 2
sb23rd Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Been reading Arthur C. Clarke I gather? Which proposition would you say has the least assumptions: 1. Jesus was an alien utilising advanced technology and all of its implications, or 2. creative license by various authors fusing old myths, legends and traditions eventually turned into a unified whole that supplanted paganism and gave Rome double powers of the word and the sword?
ObserveandReport Posted April 19, 2016 Author Posted April 19, 2016 Been reading Arthur C. Clarke I gather? Which proposition would you say has the least assumptions: 1. Jesus was an alien utilising advanced technology and all of its implications, or 2. creative license by various authors fusing old myths, legends and traditions eventually turned into a unified whole that supplanted paganism and gave Rome double powers of the word and the sword? I love that Arthur C. Clarke quote. Definitely the latter. But if you are working with a credulous audience, ending up with aliens is a hilarious absurdity.
jpatin241 Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 Although Jesus did live let us think about two things. First no one would take any religious leader or Rabbi serious in Israel at that time that wasn't married and had children. God's first commandment was be fruitful and multiply. This was a must for any Jewish leader. How they overcome this is by making Mary a whore. Second the original sin was trying to be God. Satan said to Adam and Eve eat of this fruit and you will be like God. Satan comes from the Jewish word satana which means ego. Heaven, hell, the devil, fire and brimstone are all new testament ideas and have nothing to do with the Torah. They are a way to force people to do the right thing. Sorry I digress. So you see for a man to be God is impossible by God's own hand. Knowing these things I believe the whole new testament is a sham to control people and get money and is in direct contradiction with the old testament. Jesus wasn't a miracle worker, an alien or God. He was a man, probably a great man with a high IQ, but nonetheless a man. His followers didn't want him to die but he did so they came up with a great story then other men found a way to cash in on this story. It's what men do. Control and take money from other men. Since men were men I'd bet.
sb23rd Posted April 26, 2016 Posted April 26, 2016 Although Jesus did live let us think about two things. Apart from Josephus, is there any other contemporary sources that would cement Jesus as a historical figure? Although I haven't read this book, I've listened to the author in several interviews and his case appears strong. I admit I lack the necessary research and speak primarily from curiosity. Satan comes from the Jewish word satana which means ego Do you have a source for this? From my research back in the day and using my dictionary app to confirm, 'satan' merely means 'adversary' or 'one who opposes or obstructs'. In Greek it translated to 'diabolos', meaning 'slanderer'. The word essentially is indicative of a role and not a character. Accuracy, precision, correctness or what have you particularly definitions and etymology, are very important on a philosophy forum.
Recommended Posts