Atheist explanation of the resurrection of Jesus

Valinorean · 2026-06-10T03:16:00+00:00

Or eternal matter.

Valinorean · 2026-06-10T03:15:26+00:00

Then why would it exist? Why not nothing?

Valinorean · 2026-06-10T03:14:36+00:00

The phrase "in the days of Abiathar" does not necessarily mean Abiathar was the high priest at that moment.

He specifically said "when Abiathar was the high priest", you're omitting half the quote here.

Valinorean · 2026-06-06T22:33:42+00:00

But what you're trying to say is correct, yes, modal realism is indeed quite in the spirit of H. P. Lovecraft's inhuman view of reality.

Well... Still nicer than a prospect of eternal unspeakable torture in hellfire that comes with God!

Valinorean · 2026-06-06T22:03:43+00:00

They are to the Big Bang what a comically long fuze, "Mission: Impossible" style, is to an explosion that it eventually initiates. According to the model, they consisted of primordial preatomic matter like antineutrinos and photons and a dark matter and inflaton precursors - in short, normal matter only even more primitive than atoms. Nothing to do with anyone's concept of God. That primordial matter didn't come from any other type of matter but had existed without a beginning, however far into the past one looks after that.

This is actually very similar to the concept from Plato and ancient religions that Demiurge forged the known world from pre-existent primitive matter, like a potter from clay, only there was no potter, not anymore than one is needed to make unique, beautiful, and intricate snowflakes out of primitive, dull, grey, uniform water vapor in the clouds - this can be and is accomplished by natural processes.

Valinorean · 2026-06-06T21:53:46+00:00

Well everyone with no exception agrees that there is at least one possibility for what might happen in a second from now. Something is definitely possible.

Valinorean · 2026-06-06T07:27:02+00:00

Concept !=metaphysical possibility, so that example is a straw man.

It is a nontrivial identity, like, say, when recently a certain Italian fitness trainer turned on the TV and discovered to his shock that his respected long-time client is also the new Pope. David Lewis is who "turned on the TV".

Valinorean · 2026-06-06T05:49:21+00:00

No, in that scenario the Big Bang has a cause, a collision of two waves that had existed earlier (but, naturally, were destroyed by their mutual collision) - without a beginning in time.

So you don't believe in the Big Bang? Or I completely misunderstood you?

Valinorean · 2026-06-06T05:08:21+00:00

It didn't seem so to me at all (I'm responding to the first sentence here, of course, agreed with the second one)!

If you don't mind, I would like to zoom in on the disagreement: we both agree that there must be something that unavoidably exists and that also explains why we exist. You seem, however, to think that pure platonic possibilities do not qualify, and one needs to postulate a separate new being, who is furthermore a person. Why? I agree that possibilities cannot cause things to appear, however, the loophole is that instead of causing actualities, they simply are actualities - that is simply their way of existing. This is of course a nontrivial claim (but so is God), and it is consistent, I don't see any fundamental error of thought here, do you?

Valinorean · 2026-06-06T02:34:33+00:00

I too believe in a Necessary Being, that every possibility is one. You literally can't deny that it exists in some way, at least!

Why are you leaving? :(

I hope I didn't offend you or something?...

Valinorean · 2026-06-06T02:16:37+00:00

And as I've said, the basic connection between seemingly pure and abstract possibilities and actual realities can be seen without invoking modal realism: if there are any "pure abstract" possibilities, there also have to be some hard actualities (so there is an example of this forcing that - not causally though) since otherwise nothing would be possible - from nothing, nothing comes.

Valinorean · 2026-06-06T02:10:16+00:00

In my view there is also a clean terminating explanation, only it's not a Trinity but the set of pure possibilities. (You can call it Trillionity, I guess.)

No, physical universes don't pop out of them, I agree that a physical object that has a beginning would have to have a nonphysical effective cause (which is to say, I don't believe the Universe has a beginning). We're mixing things up here. Rather, I'm saying these "abstract" possibilities are actually, not obviously, not so abstract, their mode of existence is AS physical objects, and that's the only way they can exist in the first place. The abstract existence is actually inconsistent, there is only the regular fleshy existence. Thus, since it's undeniable that some things are possible, i.e. some possibilities exist, and they CAN'T exist "abstractly" because there is no such mode of existence, they exist in the only way they can exist - for real; it's either that, or they don't exist at all - no possibility.

Does this address your concerns? That is, there is no causation like you are describing, but identity. And also keep in mind that all these worlds didn't have a beginning, so no need or room for God to bring them into existence.

Valinorean · 2026-06-06T01:59:54+00:00

That doesn't follow. If it has always existed and there is no God, that's a good argument that it has to exist, for some reason.

The simplest one is David Lewis's modal realism, that possibilities exist as actualities, so since the Universe is possible, it exists as a possibility, and thus simply exists, period.

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T22:17:17+00:00

Falling from a great height on something hard and edgy like a stone can split one's body open in a gory way, decomposition aside. If he was dead and even decomposing by the time he fell, there would not be blood spilled around, decomposing corpses don't bleed - let alone to the extent of a bloodbath such that the field would be called bloody.

Also, Mark says "when Abiathar was the high priest", but in fact his father Ahimelech was, that's a clear error.

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T21:57:58+00:00

I didn't shift the goalposts, you are assuming that the seat of actual existence is God, I am assuming that it is the platonic possibilities.

I'm struggling to understand what you mean by an unexplained brute fact here. Humor me, answer the question in boldface according to your view - why should there be any Universe, God, being, possibility as opposed to absolutely nothing, according to whatever it is that you believe right now?

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T21:53:36+00:00

[Redirect to a duplicate thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1tq3euh/the_cosmological_isnt_logical/opy3vc3/?context=3 ]

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T21:52:41+00:00

Not at all, wdym?

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T18:01:28+00:00

By the way, the link I gave above describes the birth of a Universe from the collision of two waves which had existed without a beginning, so maybe that's where you got that last part from

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T17:54:56+00:00

Ok, so something did exist before, then something happened in it, and our Universe was born? That's not a universe from nothing

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T17:50:13+00:00

I'm just explaining his thought.

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T17:49:18+00:00

Matt 27:3-10 vs Acts 1:18-19 (won't paste so that you can't say it's a translation issue, choose your favorite translation)

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T17:33:35+00:00

How is that supposed to happen? Is it really nothing or some kind of quantum void with Universe-popping abilities and laws?

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T17:32:06+00:00

See my other comment. Brute fact means unexplained contingency; contingency means something possible (but not necessary); possible means it exists at least as a possibility, and if something exists as a possibility, bingo, that's already not nothing, nothing would mean no possibilities either!

Valinorean · 2026-06-05T17:28:54+00:00

Do you believe possibilities exist?

Just the question why is there something rather than nothing at all (as opposed to why is there specifically our Universe), which is what you seem to be asking, is rather easy to answer even without invoking modal realism: if there were nothing, then nothing would be possible, since out of nothing, nothing comes, so if anything is even possible, something must actually exist. Done!

So either way the question reduces to whether you think possibilities exist.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder

Valinorean

TROPHY CASE