Forums

Thanks Weezer, I am always happy to discuss anything that is unclear.

Backtracking somewhat, I see your arguments for Jesus not being a real person, and considered that myself.  But after finding the Gnostic Gospels, that seemed to describe him as more of an average person, but were thrown out of the canon, I decide that he possibly existed.  I am having a hard time understanding why people insist he DID NOT exist, when we really don't know for sure.  Would it make your arguments more palatable to some if you took a more agnostic stance on this issue?

Robert, sometimes I have trouble following you, but I like the general direction you are going with your ideas.  THANKS!

·       This is a great question.  What is needed is for the logical, evidence-based solutions to be packaged in ways that make them saleable and attractive to a mass audience, while retaining their integrity and coherence.  ·       My view is that this is exactly what the original authors of Christianity tried but in large measure failed to do.  By imagining Jesus as a philosopher king and packaging him as the Gospel miracle worker, the authors of the Gospels thought they could control the political movement they were starting, but they did not appreciate how the power would be ripped from their hands and their work would be distorted. ·       Or maybe they did appreciate the likelihood of such a corrupted result?  My view is that the original authors had a very high astronomical understanding, and constructed Jesus in a two-step model, as avatar of both the Zodiac Age of Pisces beginning in 21 AD, with its astrological theme of compassionate mystical belief, and of the Zodiac Age of Aquarius, beginning around now, with its astrological theme of innovative humanitarian knowledge.  The story at Luke 22:10 of the man with the water jug (Age of Aquarius) showing the way to the upper room (integration of earth with the visible heavens) provides a metaphor for this natural cosmology. ·       On this hypothesis, the spreading of the gospel around the world over the course of the Age of Pisces as outlined in Matt 24:14 aimed to ‘prime the pump’ for a coming New Age, when human culture would have evolved sufficiently to see a path toward operating on the Christian principles of the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Judgement, when the response to a Christ figure would be dialogue rather than crucifixion.  ·       My view is that the Gospel authors imagined the Dawn of the Age of Aquarius as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the ‘seventh day’ of creation in the day-millennium scheme of Psalm 90:4, the millennium of rest and restoration needed to heal the planet after the ravages of human destruction over the last six thousand years. ·       I see this model of time as a way to integrate science and popular myth, serving the serious political need to explain the climate apocalypse in Christian terms.  With the world hurtling toward collapse and conflict due to the fragility and sensitivity of our economy and politics in the context of a brittle natural climate, we are in a situation where the mythology of the four horsemen - death, disease, hunger and war – provides a major literal risk of the impending planetary future. ·       The tectonic pressures of planetary warming will continue their remorseless increase toward breaking point unless there is a paradigm shift that integrates climate solutions with an acceptable cultural framework, including some level of respect for cultural traditions.  ·       Preventing such catastrophic outcomes can be supported by exploring how such real results were imagined in ancient times, and how this realistic imagination, the ‘won’t be water but fire next time’ idea of 2 Peter 3:7, was concealed in the popular language of symbolic mythology in the Bible. I wrote a paper last year on the arithmetic of climate stability. It got partly through peer review in a leading scientific journal, but was not published due to my refusal to accept the opinions of one peer reviewer.  This paper sets out my views on climate solutions in detail, with only marginal allusion to religion with the idea of integral ecology. I expect I will circulate it publicly soon. ·       Recognising that popular culture operates at an ignorant and emotional level does not mean we should treat people with contempt.  The integration of the messages of science and religion is necessary to steer the world onto an ethical path, aiming to overcome the polarisation of politics toward mutual respect and reconciliation.  The problem is that the corruption of politics makes it a sphere where scientific messages get highly distorted, by both left and right. Such distortions by the right are widely noted, but the left-wing idea that decarbonising the economy is a sufficient response to climate change is an equally distorted and polarising message in my view. ·       My hope is that the steady increase of planetary integration illustrates that the old magical ideas of “salvation” have to be replaced by logic and evidence.  Processes such as the rise of the internet, the growth of world trade, and even the epidemiology of the pandemic generate the need for scrutiny, transparency and accountability in ways that old-fashioned beliefs have no answers for.  ·       Old beliefs can be reimagined.  Salvation through “going to heaven” is a metaphor for fixing the planet, while damnation through “going to hell” is a metaphor for planetary collapse and conflict.  ·       Finding the hard and narrow path that leads to salvation (Matt 7:14) in a scientific world requires the ethical observation that the emotional magical thinking that pervades popular religion is in fact the wide and easy highway to hell.  ·       Shifting Christianity onto a scientific ethic, which means recognising that Jesus was a fictional invention, seems to me the best way to put logic into the centre of public debate.

WalterP suggested he would put this topic in a debate forum, and I thought I would put the science version of it in this forum so that if anyone wished to learn about it, discuss or debate the science version of it rather than the religious version they could.   To understand the science version and basis for the fine-tuning argument, read any of the links below. A few also mention the religious perspective.   IMO the fine-tuning argument, involving the so-called anthropocentric universe has its primary sway in religion rather than having a sound scientific basis. Most scientists today would strongly disagree with this statement. Also IMO Fine tuning is based upon the false assumption by mainstream science that the laws of nature and the so-called free parameters of physics collectively are a separate entity from nature and our universe, and could have preexisted it.  I believe the laws of nature and of physics do not have a separate existence by themselves. Instead the laws of nature and the so-called free parameters of physics are not free at all but bound to each other via the mechanics of nature we observe. All of these parameters involving physical relationships have been discovered or invented by men to explain the physical relationships of nature. These so-called laws of physics are often very good at predictions and explanations, but sometimes they have been proven wrong and are changed. If so, there would be no such thing as a fine-tuning argument. There is just one known universe. Along with it our invented laws of nature, physics and its parameters must be a part and could never be separate from nature and involve different parameters and constants -- or have an existence by themselves anymore than science, forces, ratios, calculations, equations etc. could be separate from reality.   Links below explain and/or propose a fine-tuned universe in the view of mainstream physicists. A few of these views are contrary to a religious interpretation of them, and some discuss the likelihood of a religious interpretation, whether right or wrong.   https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/scientific-approaches-to-the-fine-tuning-problem/   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe   https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-26300-7_6   https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/   https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/12/19/the-universe-really-is-fine-tuned-and-our-existence-is-the-proof/?sh   http://cosmos.nautil.us/short/119/fine-tuning-does-not-imply-a-fine-tuner                

No reason there couldn't be separate threads in two different forums.  We generally don't like to waste bandwidth on duplicate threads; but having two different approaches to the arguments, as would be offered by the respective forums, might be beneficial for our ever-present but unseen audience of lurkers.  Just a thought, take it for what it's worth. 

Thanks for this Pantheory.   However, my prime reason for selecting the Den isn't the hope that I will find any Christians there willing to defend this argument.   If they rise to challenge, fine.  If they don't, no matter.  Should the Mods judge my input worthy they might pin it there, waiting for any future Christians to tackle it.   No, the main reason why the Den is the best place is because this argument plays a HUGE role in current Christian apologetics.   Therefore, this topic is not just about science.  It's about how science is used and misused by Christians to further their religious agenda.   Christian apologists always try to use mainstream and orthodox science to support their religious beliefs.   Unfortunately, this means that alternative cosmologies and unorthodox scientific views do not feature in their apologetic arguments at all.   But I respect and appreciate your input here Pantheory and your willingness to cooperate with the aims and goals of this site.   Thank you.   Walter.    

Hi Walter,   I don't think you will find any Christians here who could defend via religion the fine-tuning argument in the debate forums. But If you post here or there I could play the devil's advocate and promote the mainstream science version of it, which I believe is the majority opinion. If the mainstream version of it is wrong, then religion would have nothing to support its bogus claims. Even if IMO the science argument for it is simply BS, I promise not to deliberately lose the argument   When you are on a college debate team and are told the subject of the debate, either law or another subject, you are not told beforehand which side you will have to support, promote,  or defend. But if you prefer, I could promote and support the religious version of this argument if no Christians choose to do so, either here or in the religious debate forums. The science arguments for and against fine-tuning are also not clear-cut so I could promote and defend the mainstream science version of fine-tuning or my alternative version which explains its mistakes IMO.