Looks like I never did make it back to this... so... here goes..
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyegrad
Interesting. I guess I see things exactly the opposite. For me reality seems to suggest not only that resurrection is possible, but that it should be expected. Having grown up on a farm, I know that life constantly springs from death. The outer shell of the seeds we plant in the ground dies so that new life may come forth. The herbaceous perennials in front of my house die back every autumn only for new life to come forth again in the spring. This is how I conceive of the ressurrection. Our bodies as our outer shells perish, but life remains in the spirit until the day appointed by God when a new physical life will spring forth. To believe that Jesus' (as God incarnate) day of resurrection was different than the rest of humanity is not that great of a stretch as He is part of the first fruits harvest in the spring, whereas the rest of us will be part of the fall harvest. Hence, having never witnessed a human resurrection in my 31 years of existence means little as the timing isn't right.
|
Well, I doubt you believe Jesus is a plant, but I appreciate the metaphor. I would observe this understanding is in line with the way I think about the world - ie chaotically, or as I've said by understanding the behavior of one thing, we can appreciate the behavior of another thing, to the extent that they are similar (The universe is composed of smaller iterations of itself). So, the question becomes are the two things being compared sufficiently similar.
Here, they are not, at least not in terms of resurrection. I would accept this as some argument in favor of "everlasting life" perhaps (In the sense of a soul being different than a body), but here's why I think your idea breaks down in terms of resurrection.
The essential factor which is missing from your description of plants dying and then coming back to life is that the plan did not,
in fact, die. Again, I appreciate the metaphor as it describes your concept, but it's not comparable. If it were the case that Jesus still had a heartbeat (that is, his "Core" did not die) when he was buried for 3 days, then your comparison comes to be more on point.
I think we can agree that without a death, resurrection is impossible as a matter of definition. Plants do not resurrect when they are indeed dead. If I kill a hosta in my flowerbed, it does not ever return. If I cut it down to the ground, it does.. but I didn't kill it.. I left it's "heart" beating.. it's root system. Thus, despite a possible outward appearance of death later resurrecting, there is
still no offer of proof on the matter upon which to base reason. (Edit: Again, to be clear, I understand the metaphor you're using as it relates to the "soul" being that "root system" but the metaphor breaks down in practice in as much as a man is not like a plant and I've still never seen a dead person, who's soul I agree survives, become re-animated after 3 days. It seems to me that I should expect my Mother to return from the grave if she should so choose, and yet I have no reasonable expectation of that. A more interesting problem, I think, is a discussion of the legitimacy of "near death" expierences. Where the Body dies and yet is later returned to life by use of CPR or electric shocks and the like)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bgrad
On the other hand, the existence of other universes only fits into my reality as a construction of human thought. I was joking asking you if Middle Earth or Narnia were other universes, but that is because this is how I classify the idea of a multiverse. For me it is nothing more than part of the mythology of evolutionary naturalism--and I do believe every paradigm holds a mythology, even nontheistic ones. Granted, I conceive all myths to contain a shard of fractured truth, but ultimately they are incomplete and muddied with a lot of human creations (i.e. subjective realities), rather than representative of God's complete creation (true reality). Hence, the only place I have seen in my life or in the study of history that would suggest the existence of other universes as a possibility is in mythology.
|
I can certainly understand your suspicion regarding the possibilities of multiple universe as a human construction. However, I think perhaps you're not giving the idea sufficient credit. That is to say, this isnt some construct I've pulled out of the air to explain my beliefs, but instead a scientific theory of reality which MAY indeed be true. Now, objectively, I cannot say if it's true. I can subjectively look at the theory, it's predicted consequences, and compare it with what I observe around me and see if it fits. To simplify, I have no idea if what is acutally holding me to this earth is indeed gravity. I've never seen gravity, I can't hold it in my hand. But, the idea of it is sensible, and gravity being real doesn't seem to violate other "rules." There are possibly other solutions to the question of "Why do we not fall off the earth" which might very well work as well, but the answer of gravity works quite well.
Anyway, again, this isn't some construct I've made up to explain anything that I couldn't explain. It's not a "makeshift" answer to a question I felt was too hard. It's an idea, a theory, with sound support in reason which is offered to explain the nature of reality. It explains how we can have quarks, and it explains how we can have black holes.... It is possible (likely?) and I cannot defeat it with observation (though, I ceartainly leave room for that occuring at someone elses hand). It fits well with my conception of reality as dynamic and not linear.... And, of course, more importantly, it makes G-d that much more intense. Master of infinite universes is to me much more impressive than merely master of one. Even short of that, the real question is - does this theory - M-Theory - establish that G-d cannot be? Answer: No. Even you would have to conceed from your paradigm that it cannot thereby be wrong and should be considered.
Quote:
|
Of course, as you know, what you consider "godmagic" I consider to be the natural workings of the universe. There is no violation of natural laws simply because God either directly wills or indirectly allows something different than our common expectations to occur (at least this is what I would call miracle, you may be using a different definition).
|
I can appreciate, I think, how God's acting at any point in time in an apparently "miraculous" way can all be part of the master plan to begin with. But, I am left with serious concerns as to why miracles used to apparently happen with such frequency and yet, I've never seen one. A sensible explaination for that is that miracles have never occurred, it's just that man didn't understand what happened rationally. The sun used to rise because it was being pulled by an invisible charoit. But, it turns out that the sun rises because the earth is spinning. So much for the magic chariot.
Quote:
|
This is where Hume's critique of cause and effect comes into play for me. Hume argued that cause and effect are merely constructions based upon our common experiences with the natural word, and as such proof of X actually causing Y can never be definitively proven for there may be something in reality that no one has ever experienced. For example, most people believe if boiling water is thrown on them it will cause pain. Now granted this is what I would also expect for it is my common experience; however, I have had one non-common experience of having boiling water thrown on me in which zero pain happened, so if it happened again I would not be surprised. This was when my high school chemistry teacher began to vacuum out the air over a beaker of water so as to cause it to boil by changing the air pressure rather than the temperature. He then quickly threw the water on those of us sitting in the front row for a good laugh. From our common experience we all flinched and expected burning pain to pursue even though intellectually we knew and understood what he had done. Anyway, I don't think it is correct to say God is violating his own laws when a miracle occurs. Rather He is simply acting in a natural, though uncommon means.
|
Maybe, but you're going a little too far in your example. The water did not behave in "magical" ways... it behaved only in accord with the rules of physics. But, in as much as I'm in a bit of a hurry here, I can conceed that God might act in a way that appears magic to us, but would not be violative of "the rules" As I said above, there may be multiple workable solutions to the "why don't we fall off the earth" problem... We can subjectively choose to believe whatever makes sense to us.
Quote:
|
Tolkien represents this point well in Lord of the Rings through the interaction of hobbits and elves. The hobbits believed the elves practiced magic becaue they were able to do things that were uncommon to the hobbits' experiences. However, the elves do not understand what the hobbits mean by calling it magic, since the acts they perform are part of their natural abilities and are common to their experience.
|
Objectively, however, did magic occur? We don't know. It depends on if you're a elf or a hobbit, I guess.
05-09-2007, 04:30 PM
Linear Mode
