Too close an analogy would produce a peculiar picture of God relying upon, for example, induction, sensory evidence, or the testimony of others. Using thought experiments often employs an appearance principle. One version of an appearance principle is that a person has a reason for believing that some state of affairs SOA is possible if she can conceive, describe or imagine the SOA obtaining and she knows of no independent reasons for believing the SOA is impossible.
Philosophy of Religion
As stated the principle is advanced as simply offering a reason for believing the SOA to be possible, and it thus may be seen a advancing a prima facie reason. Imagine there is a God who knows the future free action of human beings. If God does know you will freely do some act X , then it is true that you will indeed do X. But if you are free, would you not be free to avoid doing X?
Given that it is foreknown you will do X , it appears you would not be free to refrain from the act. Initially this paradox seems easy to dispel. If God knows about your free action, then God knows that you will freely do something and that you could have refrained from it. Think of what is sometimes called the necessity of the past.
Once a state of affairs has obtained, it is unalterably or necessarily the case that it did occur.
You might also be interested in
If the problem is put in first-person terms and one imagines God foreknows you will freely turn to a different entry in this Encyclopedia moreover, God knows with unsurpassable precision when you will do so, which entry you will select and what you will think about it , then an easy resolution of the paradox seems elusive. To highlight the nature of this problem, imagine God tells you what you will freely do in the next hour.
Under such conditions, is it still intelligible to believe you have the ability to do otherwise if it is known by God as well as yourself what you will indeed elect to do? Self-foreknowledge, then, produces an additional related problem because the psychology of choice seems to require prior ignorance about what will be choose.
Various replies to the freedom-foreknowledge debate have been given. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, and the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
We can also look to the Babylonian Talmud a record of Jewish rabbinic teachings, in which they make references to Jesus Yeshua, or Yeshu as an insult by Jews killed on the eve of Passover by hanging another word used to refer to crucifixion. Again back to my original point.
Can a scientist believe in the resurrection? Three hypotheses.
People can make claims but our question is what evidence do you bring to prove your claim. The claim the bible made is right concerning Jesus and His death. Which points to its historical reliability, divine inspiration, a book warranted for further study. That is if you are open minded and unbiased in seeking out the truth no matter where it will lead. You misunderstand the claim in the Quran about the death of Jesus.
Muhammad can only know that Jesus did not die by revelation from Allah. God created a duplicate of Jesus like an automaton, one supposes who died on the cross while Jesus was assumed into Heaven. He will return from Heaven to cast down an evil ruler, and will reign here on Earth.
But no one saw Jesus as not dying— he appeared to, so no question of a historical difference as to reliability, at least with this incident. Please correct me if i am wrong in this. Yet the entire story of the Enlightenment, and the reason it was overcome by post-modern philosophy—is that that of philosophers realizing over time that pure rationality is incapable as an epistemological standard for what is true and not true.
Obviously this is not a rational proof for the existence of God and that the Bible is true. But it is a consistency which is worth our attention. The other logical explanation, as you point out, is that people often believe that something is true, and then they are willing to die for it whether it is actually true or not.
And of course, that is another very likely explanation. Why should this be so, I thought to myself?
- Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science?.
- Das Haus der sprechenden Tiere: Eine Fabel (German Edition).
Hi there! Thanks for sharing. There is scientific proof that we exist even after we are dead. Our bodies are full of electric current. And this cannot be destroyed. Sow yes our mortal bodies die but our energy lives on. Some call this energy the soul or the spirit. And if we believe we have already died aka the born again experience. I believe. He is risen. So far no repeatable experiment scientific method has disproved the assumption. Keep sharing your insight — the world needs to hear and comprehend the message and reality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of our One True God.
We are dealing with unrepeatable untestable history here, not science. We do however have various historical documents that record supposed eyewitness testimony of people who did see the resurrected Christ. Although we cannot do that, the next best thing is the testimony of someone who did and whose life was radically changed as a result and spent the rest of their lives living and even experiencing suffering as if it was true. Well, I guess to be technical, yes, you are right. Three possible interpretations would be a more accurate title.
Good point! Well, hypotheses within science need to be testable. But a hypothesis is simply a postulate.
It does not need to be testable. How did language arise? How did the first life arise? How did multi-cellular life arise?
Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The resurrection cannot be proved in a scientific sense of the word, so in that sense, hypothesis is not a good word. But in a more general sense, there are three options concerning what happened — 3 guesses — 3 possible scenarios. When a hypothesis is untestable in the scientific sense of the word, and scientists still view it as a probably solution, it becomes a belief. A scenario, in their eyes, makes the most sense.
Same here. But in neither case has it been or can it be truly tested in the scientific sense of the word. I wonder if he accepts the secular story that assumes God did not intervene or if he is open to God intervening in the creation of the world as well.
- Analysis and Control of Underactuated Mechanical Systems.
- The Ring.
- Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science? – REVOLUTION AGAINST EVOLUTION.
- Filippo il Macedone (Biblioteca essenziale Laterza) (Italian Edition).
- At The Feet of Jesus;
- La Biología De La Creencia (Spanish Edition);
As he said, certainly for the normal order of events, science is unbeatable, but God has, can, and sometimes still does intervene in supernatural ways in His world which is why I believe the biblical record of history, including Genesis. His argument revolved around two interrelated things which he assumed were manifest to anyone who bothered to look. Instead of looking at the character and vitality of actual Christians and churches we now tend to fall back on logical or historical arguments to prove that at least belief in the resurrection is intellectually defensible.
The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity
I would say definitely not. Its followers are equally willing to die for their beliefs, and practice absolute nonviolence toward both humans and animals, where Christians are forever making exceptions to allow for their violence. It would be a fruitful and interesting discussion to explore which of the two world views make more sense of why the world is the way it is, but not realistically possible in a forum such as this. What do you have in mind here? If you can make a logical argument in defense of Christianity, you would be the first person in history to do so.
Related Science and Christian Thought (Illustrated)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved