u/TheRealBibleBoy

If were to ask someone to "Define the experience of the color blue" they would likely tell me about light rays, and how a certain intensity of a certain wave of light effects our neurons, and our eyeballs in a way that produces the "experience" of the color blue.

that is only a relational description of what is going on, that doesn't tell me what it is like to see blue, you cannot give me a non-circular description of what it is like to see the color blue.

you can say "blue is the color of the ocean" or "this light activates cones in my eyes" but that only tells me what is happening that doesn't tell me what it is like.

Facts about an experience, do not equate to an explanation of phenomenal character of having that experience.

On top of this, we can experience the color blue, such factors are absent. I can close my eyes and imagine a blue square right now, without the light waves "required".

Thus, the experience of the color blue cannot be reduced down to a particular composition of physical components.

On top of this, when I imagine the color blue, "where is it?" the question seems kind of stupid, I must admit, but it does have implications. When I imagine the color blue, do I see it with my eyes? my eyes only see data from light, but the imagined blue is not coming from actual light. is the experience in my brain? what part of my brain?

If it cannot be physically reduced, nor physically localized, I am led to beleive that it is not physical at all.

I don't think I'm nessecarily making an argument from a gap in our knowledge, atleast not my argument from the irreducability of the experience of the color blue. It can't be defined in a way that isn't circular.

The Question is exactly what is said in the title.

In our sleep, we dream I do not think we can seperate dreaming from experience. To dream is to behold multiple sensations while asleep. Dreams often include the experience of sight, as in, we see things in our dreams, they often even include the experience of sound.

Surley experiences require being conscious, thus so as long as we are dreaming, we are never truly "unconscious".

are we ever truly unconscious?

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

The bible teaches that the LORD is the supreme God, the one worthy of Worship, but it teaches that thare are other gods as well, who have real power, and real influence in the world.

This is biblical scholarly consensus btw.

Pslams 82: God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: ...(skipped 5 verses for time) I say, “You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; 7 nevertheless, you shall die like mortals and fall like any prince.” 8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations belong to you!

Psalms 82 is a passage that says "God" (Elohim in hebrew) sits with a divine council consisting of other "gods" (elohim) and he judges them. They are called children of them most high. Their existence is not denied, but their status is put into context. they are not the most high, but mere children of him.

In exodus 12:12 it says "On all the gods of egypt I will execute judgement". In the bible YAHWEH is frequently talking about judging these other gods. He is not going to judge something that does not exist.

If you read from St. justin Martyr In his "first apology" (a book he wrote) he compares Jesus to the pagan gods, and doesn't ever deny the existence of them, instead he claims the pagan gods are demons.

“They called them gods and gave each of them the name which each of the demons had chosen for himself.” - St. Justin Martyr

The bible teaches other gods, the early church beleived in them, and modern biblical scholarship agree that the bible teaches such things.

This isn't quite like "ancient polytheism" in the way we tend to think of it. The bible teaches that YAHWEH is not ontologically equal with the other gods. YAHWEH is the "most high" there is only one creator, and these other "gods" are merely very powerful creations.

Ask yourself "at what point does something become a God?" is the MCU's Thor a god? if so, what particular qualities of him constitute divinity? Is it his life-span and special abiliities? if life-span and special abilities are all it takes to be a "god" then if hulk lived for 3,000 years he'd be a God. as a matter of fact, any really old superhero would be. These are the sorts of issues that we run into when we try to use the term "god" as a binary. it simply does not work.

In classical theism "God" isn't just any powerful, and really old being, but the prime mover of the universe. but if you use the term "god" as most people think of it, then the bible is polytheistic.

My thesis, is that there is no other way for God to "be love" but for him to be a trinity.

All classical conceptions of God say that God is unchanging, he is pure act, and simple. When we say that "God is simple" we mean that God does not consist of multiple parts, but he is one homogenous substance, who's essential attributes are equal to his very being.

To create something, is to use that which you have, and to put it into form. A brick cannot create water by itself, because it lacks the properties and attributes nessecary. This is because (as all classical theologians agree) "An effect cannot preceede it's cause in perfection".

If there is a God who creates loving beings (the effect) then the cause (God) must have love before creation.

"having love" requires certain things. Love is like a gift, in the sense that it requires exactly 3 things. A gift requieres a giver, a recipient, and an object that goes from the giver to the recipient (the gift itself). Without a recipient, there is no gift, without a gift there is no giver, without a giver there is no recipient. The 3 of them nessecitate eachother for a gift to be present.

In the same way, love requires a lover, the bond between them (the love itself) and the beloved. If God has always been lover, then there has always been a bond, and if there has always been a bond then there has always been a beloved.

The trinity is the idea that the father is the lover, the son is the beloved, and the spirit persnoally subsits as the love between them, as one substance in 3 distinct persons. the 3 distinct categories of love, lover, and beloved, all ground their eternal existence in the divine nature, and this is also where they have their distinction.

P1. Love, Lovers, and Beloveds are 3 distinct categories

P2. To have Love requires all 3

P3. God has love

Conclusion: all 3 have existed for as long as God has.

I beleive the title of my writting is sufficiently specific. I'm not making the claim that atheists cannot have a system that dictates how one could act in order to lead to outcomes that they approve of.

When I speak of "morality" I am speaking of: the set of principles, norms, or judgments concerning what agents ought to do, and concerning what is "right", "wrong", good, bad, just, or unjust in relation to themselves and others.

Now I'll make my case.

Premise 1: When one performs an act, the act is either of no moral significance, morally good, or morally bad.

Premise 2: One is responsible for their own moral acts

Premise 3: One should be treated with respect to how they act (for example, if one commits a crime they should be punished)

Everyone agrees thus far (hopefully) because that's very simple, but my issue with materialism, is that it struggles to identify "who/what exactly is resopnsible for the acts?"

Premise 1: If all that exists is mere material, all that you are (and all that you can be) is mere material (obvious materialism)

Premise 2: "you" are equal to your specific material makeup and composition

Premise 3: all of the mass that you were once composed of approximatley 100 days ago, is no longer in the material composition it was 100 days ago. (this is because we tend to have our cells fully replaced by then)

Conclusion: After 100 days, that which was identified as "you" no longer exists, and whatever the current composition is, must be the makeup of a new thing.

This means that if one were to commit murder 100 days ago, nobody, or nothing in existence would be guilty of that murder in the present, and therefore the present "person" who was locked up on the grounds of "murder" is actualy an entirely new thing, that never committed such an act.

I know of many materialists who are completley fine with accepting these terms, this actually isn't even that hot of a philsophical take at all, but I beleive that it's implications on morality cannot withstand a reductio ad absurdum.

One could easily respond to my argument by saying: "Yes, you're right, that which was "you" 100 days ago is no longer present, and what is present is now a new thing. however, this doesn't effect my morality in any sort of meaningful way, because in reality, we all know that whatever "it/he" is that commited the murder 100 days ago, is still a danger to society based on the past, and thus he will remain underneath this punishment regardless for the sake of the well-being of the world"

This objection is 100% logically consistient, but it operates underneath a consequential notion of morality, and consequentialism pretty much always leads to terribly absurd conclusions, and trolly problems.

If you could imprison someone/something that has not commited murder for the well-being of society, why not tortue 50 kids in a jigsaw trap for years and years if it's gonna greatly benefit society?

Why not do any bad thing that wouldn't lead to greater good? Why not kill 6 million jews if it's going to make the world a better place at the end?

When morality boils down to consequences, morality itself gets dissolved in the process of boiling, and is reduced to fantastical notion of attempting to produce future progress.

Zechariah 2:8-13 is an O.T passage, I intend to use this passage to demonstrate a consistency between the old testament conception of God and the New testaments trinity.

"For thus said the LORD: after his glory sent me to the nations who plundered you: Truly, one who touches you touches the apple of my eye. 9For I am going to raise my hand against them, and they shall become plunder for their own slaves. Then you will know that the LORD has sent me. 10Sing and rejoice, O daughter Zion! For I will come and dwell in your midst, says the LORD. 11Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD on that day and shall be my people, and I will dwell in your midst. And you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. 12The LORD will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land and will again choose Jerusalem.

13 Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD, for he has roused himself from his holy dwelling"

That's the passage (zechariah 2:8-13). It opens us by telling us exactly who is speaking "For thus says the LORD" so when we see terms like "me" we know that: me = "the LORD" and so does "I"

in this passage we find: "Then you will know that the LORD has sent me". So the LORD, will be sending the LORD.

Let's put together our first set of minimal facts.

1. The Lord is speaking in the 1st person (using terms such as I, and Me)

2. The Lord is being sent

3. The Lord is the "Sender"

So something Identified as both "Sender" and "Sent" is called "The Lord".

Both the "sender" and the "sent" are described using different conjugations and tenses of personal pronouns.

for example it says: "after his glory sent me" the pronoun "his" is used to describe a person other than yourself, and we already know that "me" is the Lord, yet so too is the sender.

We see "The LORD" being used to describe 2 distinct persons within the old testament.

In the New testament, in Hebrews 1:8 The father (Yahweh) refers to the son as God (Yahweh), and all throughout the new testament the son claims to be sent by the father.

This is a clear consistency.

The title is precise, it is exactly what I intend to argue for.

My claim, is that when we take a look at the gospels, the epistles, and other historical witnesses, the data best points to the idea that Jesus did infact claim divinity.

Everyone can agree that Jesus claimed something special, but what is this "Special thing?"

Perhaps he claimed to be a mere prophet, or maybe he was the leader of some divine movement, or maybe just one of God's most faithful men.

Whatever it is he claimed to be, do, have, or know it was so controversial that it got him killed.

for the sake of argument, I will grant that there are certain biblical passages that appear to be a denial of Christ's divinity, such as when he says "the father is the only true God", or "Call no man good but God alone".

I'm not arguing for the truth of Christianity, just for the truth of the historical claim that Jesus said he was God, and thus I won't try to square any alleged "contradictions"

Instead, I can freely grant contradictions. I can grant that at some points in time he did claim to be God, and in others he denied divinity, I can simply say that Jesus was inconsistient.

Of course, I do not subscribe to this, I am a Christian who subscribes to the Marvelous Triune conception of God, but this is for mere argument sake.

Pliny the younger (non-christian writter from the life-time window of Jesus) writes: "They sing songs to Christ as to a god".

We can all agree that whatever ideas were spreading about Jesus post his alleged ressurection had people elevating his status, the question is "did the ideas originate from him, or from elsewhere?"

In Mark 2 (our earliest gospel) there is a passage where Jesus forgives the sins of a man, the audience says "but who can forgive sins but God alone?" and then Jesus, being ever so bold (as he ought) replies with "What's easier to say, your sins are forgiven, or get up and walk?" The man he forgave proceeds to get up and walk. So he is accused of claiming a right reserved to God alone, and he doubles down on it.

In this instance Jesus is clearly making a point of his divine identity, this is found in all gospels, and thus it is consensus among our earliest sources that an instance of these sorts had happened.

Is there any good reason (apart from presupposing miraculous healing is impossible) that I should doubt this early consensus report?

(no)

In Phillipians chapter 2, Paul records an early Christian creed, which scholars agree was around 40 A.D (7 years post ressurection) this creed explicitly says that Jesus has the very nature/form of God.

The earliest historical testimonies of those who claimed to follow Christ constantly record him as one who either claimed divine identity, or did divine things. let's put the peices together

1. Jesus was making some really audatious claims about his identity

2. Such claims warranted a reaction so severe, it got him killed

3. The earliest Christian sources record people beleiving in really audatious things about him (such as him having the very nature of God)

4. these claims show up SUPER early

5. This beleif either came from Jesus himself, or those who sourrounded him.

6. contradiction is possible

It makes most sense to conclude from this data: that Jesus did infact claim divinity. that answer is the most simple way to explain all the data without adding extra steps, and thus violating occam's razor.

Let me preface by saying I am attending a nondenominational/evangelical church. Modern worship, especially in evangelical/nondenominational spheres of church has many common themes which I find problematic. My primary concerns are lyrical concerns, and “Seeker sensitive” concerns.

Many worship songs sing false hopes, or falsehoods, and use God’s name to sponsor them. I am not the first one to point out that in the past few years worship teams have been obsessed with singing songs about how God is going to break down the walls of Jericho in our lives. It’s a fantastical idea. The story of Jericho is most certainly one to be admired, and God should be praised for it, but applying it to our life is where the problem gets made.

“My Jericho is coming down My victory is coming now” - “Jericho” first pentecostal church of north little rock

Lyrics like these I find quite problematic. This is a nice sentiment, but it could very easily be false. Who told you that YOUR jericho is coming down? Who told you, that you know your jericho? What appears like Jericho to you, may not be a problem in God’s eyes. Have you not read the story of Jericho? Before the walls came down, one generation of israel had sinned against God, and they had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years.

How do you know, that you’re entering Jericho, and not just wandering? The answer is, you probably don’t. If your “worship” consists of speaking falsehoods over yourself, and slapping God’s name on it, then it falls short of what true worship should be.

Many people might interpret “My Jericho” as a tragic event happening. Imagine you’ve got a sick relative, and you’re singing about how God is going to knock down your Jericho (heal the person) and he doesn’t. You made a statement about what God is going to do, and he didn’t do it. In John chapter 4, we’re told to worship in spirit and in truth. Focus on the “truth” aspect. Worship divorced from truth is incomplete. Too many worship songs attribute actions to God that he may or may not take. 

We should make worship songs on these topics

1. What God has done/who he is.
2. The power of God.
3. The Holiness of God.
4. The sovereignty of God.

I’m not saying it’s bad to sing about what God can do for your life, but I think we should try to stay away from singing about what we think God will do, and focus on what he can do if we’re going to sing about future miracles. 

Perhaps instead of singing about how God is going to decimate each and every problem in our life (he’s not) we should sing about how God is powerful, just, and caring, and therefore we need not worry.

God’s word tells us that we need not worry for those very reasons, but God’s word does not tell us that he’s going to “break down all of our Jericho’s” or something.

Another massive fault that I identify is the “seeker-friendly” nature of worship. At church people will say things like “Worship wasn’t that good today” or “I liked worship last week better”

We aren’t worshipping you bro!!! 

The fact that we feel as though we are in a position to complain about how we felt about a particular instance of worship says alot about how we’ve been taught to view worship. The only reason the worship wouldnn’t be good, is because you didn’t do it in spirit and in truth, as Our Lord tells us to in John chapter 4. 

I understand that not all music is going to be equally appealing to your ears, but if that’s one of your primary concerns you have absolutely lost the point. 

Worship is for God, not for you. It would be nice if all worship songs appealed to us on an equal level, but they don’t. The songs should not be for you, they are for God. The modern worship experience seems tailored towards the congregants instead of towards Our Lord. The job of a modern worship leader is to make sure the congregation enjoys worship. That’s why they choose the songs they do. They ask “which songs elicit the best reaction from the audience.”

The question is rarely “What form of worship is most pleasing to God?”. Seriously, if you’re a worship leader, when was the last time someone in one of your meetings asked a question like that? 

God clearly has ways that he would like to be worshipped. He’d like to be addressed as though he is holy because he is holy. The entire book of leviticus preaches this point to us. Just because the law has been fulfilled does not mean we can approach God as being any less holy. Being our friend, and being available does not negate his holiness. God has intentions for worship.

In the new testament, the greek word for worship is “proskuneo” which literally translates to “prostrate” it means to bow. There is nothing about bowing that is seeker sensitive, the bow is entirely for the one bowed to, not for the one bowing. We cannot forget this posture in our worship.

We must worship in spirit, and truth.

This post is a response to a post made by u/pazuzil.

My case, is that an alien intervention does not explain the data that we observe, as well as a divine intervention would. Intelligent alien life is statistically likely because the universe is massive.

This is what I argue against

Premise 1: Advanced aliens could have technology that looks supernatural to ancient humans.

Premise 2: Jesus’ miracles could have been advanced technology, not actual violations of physics

.Premise 3: Aliens may have created Christianity to guide humanity morally and prevent self-destruction.

**Premise 4:**Ancient people interpreted advanced beings and technology as “God” and “miracles” because they lacked modern concepts.

**Premise 5:**The rise of Christianity shows something unusual happened around Jesus.

**Premise 6:**The alien explanation only requires advanced life and advanced physics, not a supernatural realm.

**Conclusion:**Therefore, the alien hypothesis is argued to be a simpler explanation than Christianity.

I grant the first premise, hypothetical aliens could indeed have technology that appears super natural.

I think Premise 2 is so incredibly speculative, that it's meaningless. "there is a natural means by which Christ could've rose from the dead, as opposed to a miraculous one". Due to the "hard problem of consciousness" I find it very hard to grant that there is a natural means by which Jesus could maintain the same consciousness through a ressurection, thus I do not grant this premise, and even If I did, it doesn't get us very far.

Premise 3: I grant that this is hypothetically possible, but we're getting really bold here.

Premise 4-6: granted.

The problem isn't with the premesis, as much as it is with the conclusion.

"If we use Occam’s Razor (the idea that the simplest answer is usually the right one) the alien hypothesis wins because it doesn't require us to believe in a magical spirit world; it just requires a version of the physics and life we already know exist."

This is what the alien theory must presuppose: Intelligent aliens exist, they became vastly advanced, they reached Earth, they interacted with humans secretly, they staged miracles, They manipulated history and religion, they specifically created Christianity, they left no clear evidence of themselves.

it also raises questions like: "How did the aliens come about? Why do they have near-god-like abilities? why trust their moral system? why would they want worship framed around God?"

Occam’s Razor does not mean “the explanation with less supernatural content wins.” It means the explanation that requires the fewest unsupported assumptions wins.

a very similar kind of evidence that you use for the existence of aliens, also applies to God.

You say "Since the universe is incredibly vast, mathematically, it makes sense that life arises somewhere" you use this argument from probability, but theists use a very similar argument. We make the argument from "fine tuning" "Since the laws of the universe are incredibly specific to the permission of life, it appears this was done intentionally". We both make the same sort of appeal to multitude, and probability to reach our conclusions based on the patterns we observe in the world.

Your appeal to the Razor, only reveals a bias towards naturalism, the assumption that a naturalistic explanation is by nature more likely than a supernatural one.