Zone1 Scientist Explains Why He Believes in the Resurrection of Christ

[ding]

I disagree. It better to be punched once than twice, at least to me. Is punching always bad or are there times when it is necessary?

Are you backtracking on your claim there is no good or bad? Why don't you try answering that question using rape or slavery instead of punching.

 

[alang1216]

Like I said, you have a very narrow view of evolution and it appears to be a self serving one. Evolution has been occurring since day one of creation and it has never ceased.

Quite the opposite, I believe almost EVERYTHING evolves:

• animals & plants
• protozoans and viruses
• stars
• societies
• religions
• technology

 

[ding]

There will always be people who won't accept the norm. Where do you stand on BLM?


Until recently, there was no conception of rape within a marriage. The man had the right to the woman and she had no right to refuse him.

That both sides are idiots and don't have a clue how to be objective or message their arguments like adults.

It's funny watching you squirm to not say rape and slavery are wrong, have always been wrong and will always be wrong.

But to your point, back when there was no conception of rape within marriage, there were people who knew it was wrong even then. It's amazing that you can't accept there were always people who opposed norms that were wrong. And that it is idiotic to define right and wrong based upon popular opinion. These things evolve just like everything else evolves. Truth is discovered usually based upon logical reasons as most standards are.

 

[ding]

Quite the opposite, I believe almost EVERYTHING evolves:

• animals & plants
• protozoans and viruses
• stars
• societies
• religions
• technology

Sub atomic particle? Clouds of hydrogen and helium? Thoughts? Beliefs?

 

[alang1216]

Is gravity probabilistic or deterministic? Which of the laws of thermodynamics aren't deterministic? Can matter be sometimes created and sometimes destroyed? Can entropy sometimes increase and sometimes decrease?

This seems to be a case where we are both right and wrong:

The universe is generally considered to be both deterministic and probabilistic, with the exact balance and interpretation still debated. Classical physics, like Newtonian mechanics, tends towards determinism, where the future state of a system is completely determined by its initial conditions. However, at the quantum level, probabilistic interpretations like wave functions are more prevalent, suggesting that the future is not completely predetermined.​

​

No offense but your belief that the universe will produce everything given enough time is either idiotic or a very poor choice of words. The universe can only produce what is possible. It can't produce everything or anything.

Hyperbole.

 

[alang1216]

Sub atomic particle? Clouds of hydrogen and helium? Thoughts? Beliefs?

Sure.

 

[ding]

This seems to be a case where we are both right and wrong:

The universe is generally considered to be both deterministic and probabilistic, with the exact balance and interpretation still debated. Classical physics, like Newtonian mechanics, tends towards determinism, where the future state of a system is completely determined by its initial conditions. However, at the quantum level, probabilistic interpretations like wave functions are more prevalent, suggesting that the future is not completely predetermined.​

​

Hyperbole.

I was talking about the laws of nature are deterministic, which makes the universe deterministic as the laws of quantum mechanics honor the laws of thermodynamics even if they do so in a probabilistic manner.

It's not hyperbole to say the universe is limited to that which is possible or potential. It's just common sense and logic.

 

[ding]

Sure.

Great, then I must have misread your prior post.

 

[ding]

Space and time have not 'evolved' since they were created by the BB.

I'm using the phrase space and time to encompass everything inside the universe. But if I were to only argue space as being the distances between objects, that too is evolving. Maybe look up the concept of dark energy and how it changes as the universe expands.

 

[alang1216]

I was talking about the laws of nature are deterministic, which makes the universe deterministic as the laws of quantum mechanics honor the laws of thermodynamics even if they do so in a probabilistic manner.

You can't have it both ways.

It's not hyperbole to say the universe is limited to that which is possible or potential. It's just common sense and logic.

It was hyperbole to the would produce everything, I should have said 'almost everything'.

 

[alang1216]

I'm using the phrase space and time to encompass everything inside the universe. But if I were to only argue space as being the distances between objects, that too is evolving. Maybe look up the concept of dark energy and how it changes as the universe expands.

This may or may not prove to be true, I can't yet say.

 

[ding]

You can't have it both ways.


It was hyperbole to the would produce everything, I should have said 'almost everything'.

Don't need to have it both ways. The laws of nature are not probabilistic. Even quantum mechanics which is probabilistic, honor the laws of nature in the macroscopic sense. So when we use the word probabilistic to describe outcomes it really has more to do with the complexity of the interactions and our inability to model that complexity than it does to randomness. There's nothing really random about the universe. It's quite logical.

What you should have said was given enough time and the right conditions everything which is possible according to the laws of nature will eventually arise.

 

[alang1216]

Don't need to have it both ways. The laws of nature are not probabilistic. Even quantum mechanics which is probabilistic, honor the laws of nature in the macroscopic sense. So when we use the word probabilistic to describe outcomes it really has more to do with the complexity of the interactions and our inability to model that complexity than it does to randomness. There's nothing really random about the universe. It's quite logical.

If we knew the location and motion of every subatomic particle in the universe, we would not be able to determine the end state of the universe due to quantum mechanics.

 

[ding]

This may or may not prove to be true, I can't yet say.

Neither can anyone else including me. I believe the prevailing thought is that dark energy density is constant and that the amount of dark energy increases because the volume of space increases. But I could be whistling dixie out of my butt.

 

[ding]

If we knew the location and motion of every subatomic particle in the universe, we would not be able to determine the end state of the universe due to quantum mechanics.

Which is why they use other methods to determine that the end fate of the universe is heat death.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Sub atomic particle? Clouds of hydrogen and helium? Thoughts? Beliefs?

Did you see the movie: The Body?

 

[ding]

Did you see the movie: The Body?

No. But I know a fair amount about our bodies. It's crazy complex. Way more complex than anything man has built.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

No. But I know a fair amount about our bodies. It's crazy complex. Way more complex than anything man has built.

The film was about putting the Resurrection in doubt.

 

[Leo123]

Just heard a lecture on a theory: The quantum world is all about superposition that is influenced by 'observation.' IOW what we perceive IS our world. New super quantum computers depend on superposition to work efficiently and fast. There is no single 1 nor any single 0, It's all always in flux.......Until acted upon (observed, etc.) It's all new and sketchy though.

 

[Cougarbear]

On this Easter Sunday, when we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I thought it would be interesting to hear a scientist explain why he believes in the resurrection.

A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection

A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection

A physicist confesses that the electron is round and that Jesus rose from the dead. My own faith is informed by the evidence, but it is much more.

peacefulscience.org

EXCERPT:

When asked to believe in something, scientists often ask questions about evidence. There certainly is evidence for the Resurrection, which can be summarized around three historical claims: 1) Jesus was crucified and died, 2) his body was buried in a tomb that was found empty a few days later, and 3) his disciples experienced encounters with who they believed to be the newly resurrected body. I will show that these three claims, backed by historical evidence and scholarly consensus, together constitute a compelling case for the Resurrection.

The first claim is the least controversial. Almost no historian disputes that Jesus lived in the first century AD, carried out a ministry for a few years and was crucified to death by the Romans. Even a skeptical scholar such as Bart Ehrman argues vigorously for the historical veracity of these basic facts, based on both Christian and non-Christian sources. . . .

More comprehensive examinations of Roman crucifixion and Jewish burial practices by specialist scholars show us that the gospel account of Jesus’ burial in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is historically credible.<a href="A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection">3</a> Similarly, there are strong arguments to support the claim that the tomb was found empty a few days later.<a href="A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection">4</a> A commonly cited reason is that the gospel accounts are rendered more credible by their agreement that women were the first witnesses to the empty tomb. More recently, John Granger Cook has argued that based on linguistic, historical, and cultural reasons, it is unlikely Paul mentions a burial and resurrection ( 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 ) without presupposing an empty tomb.

Two events that today, Science can confirm can be done. The first, the conception of a virgin. In vitro fertilization is common today. Take a sperm of a man and place it in the woman's egg. If God could bring to being the entire universe and organize it with an earth that we live in, he most certainly could perform the medical procedure. It's my opinion that based on scripture, the Holy Ghost was the doctor who took the Father's sperm and placed it in the egg of Mary.
Second, the resurrection is simply using DNA of Jesus to reconstruct his body and for Jehovah, the spirit of Jesus, to be placed back into his body, celestialized, never to die again and uncorruptible. We are able to clone scientifically today. Even bring back the extinct animals to life as well. Again, I'm sure God could do this with no problem.
In order for these things to happen, we have to stop using ancient views that have no basis in fact like God has no body, parts or passions. That he's so big he can fill the universe and yet so small he can dwell in our hearts. That he's invisible with no form. There is nothing in the Bible to conclude this mystical magical nonsense. Jesus said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. More clearly, the Father also has a body of flesh and bone, uncorruptible and celestial glorified.