Is this whole universe only a concept?

That argument for me tends to require something outside the system to both comprehend the system and itself, to be an observer to observe - else how would anything know your argument was true? Certainly not something within the system as we know it, because we have a limited capacity to view ranges of causality spatially, to have much luck to project it temporally. Therefore it seems to have no relevance to those within the system because any capability to predict is limited by their own capacity to comprehend it.

It also seemingly requires that this external observer not be able to interact with the system its observing 'fully', else I feel it violates its capacity to comprehend it, because by interacting with ours it is merging causality of two systems - unless it can comprehend both its system in entirety and our system in entirety at the same time which makes me think it would cease to have sentience because 'it' would cease to exist separate from where 'it' actually existed. So I think the best we can do is consider this 'step' to be our experience of time, which is why we consider ourselves sentient. A spatial version of time IMO would constitute rejoining the Force, or at the least the state of awareness at the lowest level possible. I think that is what the mystics experience, awakening to the experience of awareness as energy which then has or appears to have a greater capacity to relate to all things in local space and time. So I don't think causality is proof of a simulated universe, and don't consider the Mandela Effect particularly relevant. It is a good exercise though - change your memory of something in the objective world and see if it re-writes the present objective reality to correspond..... lemme know how it goes!?
:blink:

Adi wrote: Uh-oh. It is time for Adi to derail yet another thread with the Facts Train™. CHOO CHOOOO

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Jesus is mentioned only in the bible which was written decades after he supposedly lived and those accounts in the bible are contradictory.

(emphasis mine) Sorry, but this is not true, and is probably one of the very worst possible arguments one could make against the "validity" of Christianity. The consensus among nearly every single ancient Near East scholar worth his or her salt is that Jesus definitely existed, as a man who lived in ancient Judea, and that he was baptized by John the Baptist (another person whose historical existence is certain), got on the wrong side of the authorities and was punished, by the administration of Pontius Pilate, by crucifixion.

Sorry to put this train "back on its tracks" but this is not accurate in the slightest. Maybe every near east CHRISTIAN scholar believes this but the controversy over Jesus existence is not one that has been put to bed by any means. Just the fact that the myth and legend of Jesus was pressed from the same template as other pagan mythical savior-gods, who came before him, who were killed and resurrected, such as Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, and Attis is evidence enough to put his existence into question. Almost every aspect of Christianity borrowed from or supplanted older Pagan practices. As for the two main other references to his existence outside the bible, The passage from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even if it were historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus. Tacitus' claim is also more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity either. Scholars agree that citing Tacitus is highly suspect and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus. But such are the straws believers must grasp in order to prop up their myth.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Sorry to put this train "back on its tracks" but this is not accurate in the slightest. Maybe every near east CHRISTIAN scholar believes this but the controversy over Jesus existence is not one that has been put to bed by any means. Just the fact that the myth and legend of Jesus was pressed from the same template as other pagan mythical savior-gods, who came before him, who were killed and resurrected, such as Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, and Attis is evidence enough to put his existence into question. Almost every aspect of Christianity borrowed from or supplanted older Pagan practices. As for the two main other references to his existence outside the bible, The passage from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even if it were historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus. Tacitus' claim is also more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity either. Scholars agree that citing Tacitus is highly suspect and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus. But such are the straws believers must grasp in order to prop up their myth.

The parallels to other mythologies could be because those mythologies all trace their roots to the original prophecy of a chosen one given to Adam and Eve. Isn't it funny how there is always a way to protect the Christian myths from debunking? Granted, it sometimes requires mental gymnastics akin to wrapping your mind around M theory, but at least the myth stays propped up. Some people need to believe Jesus was real before they will listen to the teachings that are attributed to him.
I think that going to great lengths to discredit Christianity is like trying to disprove Buddhism. No one cares whether or not Siddhartha was a real person. It doesn't make the teachings any less valuable. Assuming Jesus was a totally fictional character, could a person still live by his example? My parents always told me that all that stuff about Jesus was true and if I didn't believe it then I would go to hell or something. I think it was their insistence that it was true that made it so easy to lay the whole thing down when I decided it wasn't. I sort of threw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater. I have since come to appreciate the teachings of Jesus in a whole new way, and it doesn't depend on the validity of his existence.

Here's another way of approaching this question: If enough people believe in Jesus so as to alter the public consciousness, could it somehow turn the fantasy into a form of reality? I mean, if everyone just randomly believed in Santa Claus and no one argued that he was just a myth, could that eventually make him a real character in everyone's minds? This is kind of like the tree falling in the forest question. Of course it creates shockwaves, but if no one hears it, can it really be called a sound?

CableSteele wrote:
Here's another way of approaching this question: If enough people believe in Jesus so as to alter the public consciousness, could it somehow turn the fantasy into a form of reality? I mean, if everyone just randomly believed in Santa Claus and no one argued that he was just a myth, could that eventually make him a real character in everyone's minds? This is kind of like the tree falling in the forest question. Of course it creates shockwaves, but if no one hears it, can it really be called a sound?

I agree to an extent. I personally could care less whether a man called Jesus existed or not. The myth of his teachings are what people find significant and so that is enough. I wont get into a lengthy debate about his existence but I also cant stand by and let someone provide false or incomplete facts about it either. That was the only point of my last post. Some buy into the other accounts and some believe the bible outright. That's fine and cool, more power to them. I just happen not to based on the evidence and feel it is important to provide a balanced point of view so others can be informed of the facts, do their own research and make the best decision possible about the issue.

Instead of moving Jesus towards reality I think we need to move him away from reality to the realm of Myth. To me Jesus is an Archetype just like any other. It is what he represents that is important, not whether he lived or not. In fact, for me the idea that he was never a flesh and blood man makes him even more valuable as a concept because as an archetype he represents something much deeper in our psyche than could ever be manifested by a mere human mortal. As the son of a shallow, vengeful, Christian God he is limited to the scope of Christianity, as a mortal man he is limited further, but as a mythical archetype he spans all mankind and all history and can provide a representation of a heroic figure that we can all aspire to be more like.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Maybe every near east CHRISTIAN scholar believes this but the controversy over Jesus existence is not one that has been put to bed by any means.

They're not all Christians - did you even read my post? At least give me that courtesy. Since I don't think you did, I'll restate it here:

Adi wrote: There are even works by atheists and agnostics who argue that Jesus, at the very least, existed and that the historical record bears this truth.

An example would be the works of Bart Ehrman, who was a Christian but became an atheist well before writing about the historical Jesus. I even seem to recall his works being poorly received by fundamentalist Christians. Amy-Jill Levine, another scholar who writes about, among other things, the New Testament and the historicity of Jesus is an Orthodox Jew who speaks rather openly about her faith. She is certainly not a Christian.

The argument that Jesus did not exist simply because his story is similar to other stories is fallacious. It is not unprecedented in the ancient or even medieval world to base stories of historical figures on those of gods and other mythological deities. The saga of Egill Skallagrimsson describes its hero as Basically Odin. Whether he did everything told in his saga cannot be proven. But what can be proven is that he existed, produced offspring that married and had children of their own, and wrote some of the most eloquent Old Norse poetry in existence.

Like I said, in order to make the argument that Jesus did not exist you would have to ignore the vast amounts of historical scholarship that have been produced on this subject (any historian worth his or her mettle *always* considers existing historiography), and defy conventions of scholarship in the field of history to the point where what you are doing is no longer history — it is myth-making, it is deception, but it is not history. For what it's worth, I do not believe Josephus or Tacitus are the strongest sources there are, but there are far more than them.

Finally, dismissing it as "second-hand history" is well off the mark. The first biography of Alexander the Great was not written until over 400 years after his death. Histories of Roman emperors were often not written until long after their death either. Yet we accept these histories as part of the historical record. Why, then, do people like you insist that a "contemporary" biography of Jesus needs to have been written within five years of his death (or whatever), rather than holding it to the same standards we use for, say, Roman emperors or other historical figures?

The "Jesus never existed" thread of scholarship has traction in only one place I know of in the modern world — the Soviet Union, where it has generally faded away since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Who Jesus was, what he did and what happened in his lifetime is something scholars cannot agree on and still debate, probably endlessly. But scholars do agree that he existed, at the very least. To go against a massive body of scholarship in such a radical way would require extremely powerful evidence, and that the evidence we have does not happen to suit your agenda or meet your standards is not proof that the historical argument you are making is valid. In history, one must do more than that.

If you are not willing to at least follow basic scholarship practices when evaluating history and making historical arguments (things I learned in my sophomore year of undergrad, btw), I'm really not interested in having this discussion.

Adi wrote: If you are not willing to at least follow basic scholarship practices when evaluating history and making historical arguments (things I learned in my sophomore year of undergrad, btw), I'm really not interested in having this discussion.

Oh good, as I have stated several times already, neither am I.

As for your implication that I am not following basic scholarship practices. Me and a myriad of other "hacks" right? Glad you made it to your sophomore year. More power to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Oh good, as I have stated several times already, neither am I.

As for your implication that I am not following basic scholarship practices. Me and a myriad of other "hacks" right? Glad you made it to your sophomore year. More power to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

There will always be dissent on any academic subject, in history most of all. History is built by people who dissent, who ask questions, who revise (yes, that naughty word, "revise" is actually at the very core of historical scholarship.) But to dissent against something that is as commonly accepted in scholarship as the historical Jesus, one must produce extraordinary evidence. Neither of those sources (RationalWiki most of all) are academic, and both were put together by people with various agendas. In fact, most of the "Christ myth" writers have or had agendas. I have written it here before, but a historian does not begin with a conclusion and then selectively choose evidence that meets that conclusion. A historian usually formulates their thesis only after they have done extensive studies already.

A writer who argues that there was no historical Jesus must be prepared to dismiss a substantial amount of evidence and historical scholarship. To me, it is on the same level as arguing that Washington was assisted by aliens from Planet Zarf when leading armies against the British in the American Revolutionary War. Disregarding a great deal of evidence, one could probably, eventually, make that argument. But is it substantiated? Is it history? Not really. As Bart Ehrman (an atheist and someone deeply skeptical of Christianity and its claimed origins) writes, "These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology."

The nasty "glad you made it to your sophomore year" remark really has no place here, along with any other personal insult. I'm not even going to dignify it with a further response, other than to say that you should know better than that and *be* better than that.

Adi wrote:
The nasty "glad you made it to your sophomore year" remark really has no place here, along with any other personal insult. I'm not even going to dignify it with a further response, other than to say that you should know better than that and *be* better than that.

LOL just as much as your implication that I did NOT make it to my sophomore year... right Adi?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: LOL just as much as your implication that I did NOT make it to my sophomore year... right Adi?

Err, no. I said that what you were saying and arguing was not history and was ignoring fundamental practices in historical scholarship, but if that's what it is, I'm not going to mince words. I have no idea what your academic or professional background is, and it's not really relevant, since I'm not interested in who you are as a person. You may have a doctorate in history and teach at Harvard. You may be a college drop-out. Either way, if you're arguing from a place of bad history, I'm going to call you out on it. No, it is not a personal attack against you (as your statement about me was.) Sorry if you read it that way.

Adi wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: LOL just as much as your implication that I did NOT make it to my sophomore year... right Adi?

Err, no. I said that what you were saying and arguing was not history and was ignoring fundamental practices in historical scholarship, but if that's what it is, I'm not going to mince words. I have no idea what your academic or professional background is, and it's not really relevant, since I'm not interested in who you are as a person. You may have a doctorate in history and teach at Harvard. You may be a college drop-out. Either way, if you're arguing from a place of bad history, I'm going to call you out on it. No, it is not a personal attack against you (as your statement about me was.) Sorry if you read it that way.

Ah very good then. Neither was mine. In fact I am glad that you have had the opportunity to attend college and learn some of the process and procedure of scholarly research and study. As for the sites I referenced, I was not linking to those sites in and of themselves but to the content, namely the scholars that have written extensively about the evidence for the existence of Jesus. There is a long list and while you may cite that they are fringe studies etc that does not make them so. I'm just saying that there is evidence on both sides.

In the end I don't think either one of us will prove that Jesus either existed or he did not exist. We could spend the next 10 pages throwing people and books and quotes back and forth and still end up right where we are right now. Many scholars say that portions of the Bible itself were forged and there is good evidence for this as well. What does that do to a book that claims to be inerrant? I don't know and quite frankly I don't care. That may sound harsh but its not really, its just my path. I'm glad you have such passion in your path as well. I hope you find all that you are looking for and along the way we can still walk side by side for a time in this place while remaining on different journeys.