The magic of physics and the resurrection of Jesus

Perhaps you have heard this assertion: the grave is the end. There is nothing beyond the grave. Perhaps you have heard this other assertion: the resurrection is a scientific impossibility. However, this is as much as to say physics is just as much magic as is the resurrection.

These assertions, when they are heard in discussions, are often heavily colored with choice expletives and cursing perhaps to create and enhance the impression of credibility. This is nothing unlike what Peter did in a frantic effort to boost his credibility after he had denied three times that he knew Jesus and no one believed him, right? You might say it's almost like a magic act when the magician utters the magic word abracadabra on his trick to make it seem real and true. Generally, the sole value of the other side of that two-fold cascade of expletives and cursing is nothing more substantive than to mock and deride the belief in the concept of an extension of life beyond the grave such as the resurrection from the dead. Christians, but also Jews, Muslims and even Hinduism with its cyclical reincarnation, all fall under the same derision, aspersion and mockery, not only from atheists, but between their respective interfaith beliefs.

Indeed. Is this true? Are those who make that assertion, scientists and atheists typically, being true to the claims of science with respect to their assertions about the resurrection being a scientific impossibility? The reality is that scientists and atheists are not much different than Christians and other theists in that one group peppers their speech heavily with claims of logic and reason and the other group with claims about faith, respectively. More often than not they both make the same or very similar claims and arguments in support of those arguments, but ego can be as blinding as staring long and directly at the sun.

what would you rather be

There is no need to subject oneself to such a painful and damaging experience as staring at the distant sun. One need only look at a nearby rock. Can a rock be subjected to such extreme pressure and heat until it disappears out of human sight, that is, that it ceases to exist as though it never existed? Basic physics tells, both the scientist and non-scientist alike that regardless of whether or not they understand it, believe it or accept it, that, yes, a rock can be made to disappear seemingly into thin air as though it never existed.

However, scientists also inform us that the subatomic makeup of the rock, that is, its stored, static energy matter can not be destroyed. It can only be changed into dynamic energy. Theoretically, the subatomic makeup of the rock -now in its changed state of dynamic energy- can be gathered together to compose the rock again. This is not physics magic. It is not a theological mystery. It is neither obscure nor convoluted. It neither suggests nor does it require that one believe or accept the concept of afterlife, heaven or the resurrection. It is basic, fundamental physics.

So how is it that an inanimate rock without any intelligence fares differently, so as not to say better, than a human being with all the knowledge that a human being amasses, its complex DNA information, and last but perhaps least of all _ the human being's physical body, subatomic makeup of stored energy matter? Literally, the skin, flesh and bones. What so-called scientific logic and reason does the scientist and atheist offer to account for such an inconsistency concerning the changing of the stored energy matter of a rock and the stored energy matter of a human being? If what, according to scientists and atheists, is true of a human being one should understandably rather choose (not that one has a choice) to be a rock, right? One can assert or hope (?) as did Stephen Hawking that one never existed. Ravi Zacharias (video time stamp, 3 min 40 sec) relates how Hawking at Lady Mitchell Hall at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge England in 1990 declared that since he, as a human being has been predetermined and is without freedom of choice he might as well not be. Hawking was not the first to utter that cry which, kind of like magic, is made null and void if for no other simple reason than that the person who utters that cry is, that is, the person by the name of the late Stephen Hawking exists. Regardless of whether or not one believes or accepts predetermination the fact is the individual exists and is alive to think and talk about his life condition and make his or her choice as to how he or she will respond to their life.

ain't it cool?

If the theory involving the changing of the stored energy matter of a rock into dynamic energy is true, and I have no doubt nor do I question that it is true, why do scientists not see, or reject, the same law as concerns, not just inanimate objects, but animate objects, too? Actually, the theory concerning the change of energy from one state to another is proved for us. It is not to be dismissed, as non-scientists are prone to do, as a theory or as not having been proved. We can see in H2O the outward substantive change with our own eyes quite routinely and regularly without human hands or human intervention or sophisticated, high technology gadgetry.

The stored energy in ice, when it is subjected to a small increase in temperature changes into the stored energy of water. If it is heated a few degrees more it will disappear into the dynamic energy of vapor, like magic, out of human sight. Then, not theoretically or virtually, but quite actually the vapor cools (with or without human involvement) and reverts back into water and then back to the stored energy state of ice. This is not magic. It's not just cool. It is not convoluted or concocted. It is simple basic physics.

the singularity

The change of energy such as from a stored state to a dynamic state involves a vastly different form of the energy which has been changed. One does not look and point to where the rock once was and say, see the rock! One does not look and point in the area where the water vapor was last seen and say, see the water, or see the ice! One can no longer see, not because of blindness, but because the stored energy has been changed into dynamic energy.

the transformation, not change, of death

After all the vast leaps in technology what should be the pinnacle, the high point feat of the Singularity? The leap is akin to a Microsoft software service pack, that is, it's nothing major like a new version. The Singularity being that near-future point at which computer technology capability exceeds that of human capability thinks, not only to circumvent death, but to defy basic physics. The change envisioned for human beings by Ray Kurzweil and Singularitians is not even the more radical transformation of human life through death, but it is the vast, but no less a whimper of change of energy like that of a rock or or like that of ice. The longing of Singularitians involves the physical uploading of human consciousness unto physical hardware so as to enable the individual to continue to life in perpetuity, or at least as long as the hardware can last.

Alas! This is the grand scheme of Singularitians to turn a deaf ear to the law of the conservation of energy and of basic physics to avoid the transformation of death? It may not be the fear of death, but it may be at the very least an obstinate flat-earth mentality akin to defying gravity in a mockery of nature and the reality of death, the ancient, ultimate nemesis of mankind.

the form of a man
The scriptures reveal the origin of death. One need not believe or accept that ancient account in the scriptures and still acknowledge the reality of death. Although the scriptures speak of death in various and different terms the only one which pertains to this discussion is the bodily, physical death of an individual who is laid into the ground. One need not believe or accept that an individual by the name of Jesus took on the form of a man to live and die among us. One need only be mindful that the life and death of Jesus was not extraordinarily different than that of any human being. He possessed an outward appearance, which according to human standards, was the form of a man. Definitely, and at the very least, his physical makeup was a mass of stored energy, but also a vast possession of knowledge. Muslims make the right and critical observation that what Jesus did, that is, the miracles, was not anything which had not been done by various prophets in Israel. Specifically, what they are referring to his the raising of the dead by Jesus. They are correct.

the actual transformation of the resurrection
What this critical observation fails to take into account is that the claims which Jesus made about himself went far beyond raising dead people. Jesus applied what He and the prophets did towards the raising of the dead to Himself. In other words, He claimed that He would lay down His life willfully and die. Then, He would take up His life from the dead again without human hands or human involvement.

This is nothing convoluted. It is not obscure. It is basic physics. It reflects what scientists have observed and informed us about the same law of the conservation of energy. It reflects the same transformation as of the energy in ice into water then vapor _ without human hands or human involvement. It reflects the similar predetermined, calculated plans of Singularitians, but with the critical difference that Jesus submitted to the virtual transformation of energy through death -not by circumventing death as is the grand scheme of Singularitians for man's eternal posterity- and then to the actual transformation (reversal) of energy through the resurrection.

conclusion
One would think the modern age of high technology is completely the sole accomplishment of twentieth century man. It is easy for scientists and technologists to acknowledge the thought and knowledge discoveries of ancient men from Aristotle to Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and others. It is not as easy to acknowledge the claims and fulfillment of the claims made by Jesus concerning his death and his resurrection. These claims and the observation of the fulfillment of those claims is no less than the required criteria of science on nature.

One need not like it, accept it or understand the law of the conservation of energy, but that does not invalidate or nullify the claims and the reality in the change of energy matter and the transformation of the resurrection from the dead. Mockery and denial may sound good and play well, but it may reveal either an ignorance of basic physics or a obstinate unwillingness to observe the same law at work in the conservation of energy as in the resurrection.

Read More

The Day of the Lord: darkened sun, blood moon, fallen stars

In recent months I have heard a message from some brothers in Christ which is new to me. Briefly, the message is that Jesus has come already. Those who are waiting for Jesus to return are mistaken about the return of Jesus. Their wait is in vain. There is no second coming of Jesus. I have heard this message proclaimed with the glee and giddiness of a child who has just received a new toy or who just made a new discovery. This teaching purports to be the fulfillment of the word of the Lord. Clearly, there is nothing gleeful about it, but a seriously mistaken notion by some men, some brothers in Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior.

an expression

Advocates and teachers of this message probably package their teaching under a freshly minted catchy name of which I am not aware and I am not given to throwing labels around. For the sake of reference and for working purposes I am going to use in this article the expression the day of the Lord right from the scriptures to refer to this doctrine and the elements of that doctrine. There are different variations of that expression throughout the scriptures including the coming of the day of the Lord.

Read More

First Believe?

I must admit it is refreshing to hear an atheist who presents his argument, or objection as in this case, without the usual excess peppering of his message (I encourage you to view the video: First Believe?) with claims and appeals for logic and reason or mockery and derision. Too often the mere inclusion of these lofty puffs about logic and reason in one’s speech are taken as proof that one’s argument is on solid logic and reason simply because the individual says it, and therefore it is so. This is not limited to atheists. Christians tout and flaunt the same claims with each other as well as with atheists. This is not to dismiss logic and reason. (It amuses me to hear Christians toss around what was once solely the atheist ploy and brand about a strawman. And you thought scarecrows weren’t real, right?)

I agree with Matt about the proposition that I will describe and what amounts to, for working purposes, not as a bait and switch, but as a switch and bait.The switch in this instance is to call on the the atheist to shift from unbelief to belief with nothing more than to have the atheist declare that they believe. Effectively, this conveniently frees the Christian from the work of engaging in thought and discussion with the atheist to bring him or her, not necessarily to that Platinum Award of belief which is rightly the Christian’s objective, but to an understanding. Acceptance of that understanding will not necessarily follow and it may or may not come during or after the discussion if ever. Quite simply the risk of acceptance may be deemed as being too much and too high for the individual and he will reject whatever and all proofs or even a thought to ponder among the evidence.

Essentially, first believe is an outfront appeal, or insistence, for the unbeliever to believe and that once they believe they will see, that is, understand the unseen matters of faith in God. I can understand the atheists’ whuh? bewilderment to such a proposition. It does constitute an incredible problem. However, it is not as though atheists do not have a similar proposition of their own. Of course, the proverbial two-wrongs-don’t-make-a-right comes to mind, but the similar proposition from the atheist is “show me and I’ll believe” or as I believe they say in Missouri, “show me.” (No, I am not from Missouri.)

"I come from a state that raises corn and cotton, cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I'm from Missouri, and you have got to show me." (Congressman Willard Vandiver in 1899)

This call for proof or evidence by atheists is certainly within the realm of what is reasonable and plausible. However, this is not to say that confirmation through sight and touch necessarily trumps or invalidates all other responses to the question of proof. Scientists work with phenomenon which is neither visible nor palpable, but that phenomenon are not for that reason rendered as invalidate or not true. Even so, the acid test for the scientific hypothesis, the theory, of the scientific method of investigation rightly states that an idea or explanation must be testable. A theory is a valid argument and not necessarily a wild guess or wild notion, so there’s no need for an ecstatic jump to conclusions that I have rejected a basic understanding about theory as it is used by scientists. The corollary affirmation to scientific hypothesis is truth. What does that mean? It means that despite our tendency for favorite preferred word choices such as belief versus understanding truth is inescapable. The much heard academic and coffee table popurri about truth as being objective, subjective, emotional, real, biblical truth, philosophical, experiential and the grandest of them all, drum roll, please: truth is absolute, are all like so much turkey stuffing with truth being the turkey.

Jesus demonstrated and defined truth by declaring that he knew 1) where he came from, 2) why he was here, and 3) where he was going. Truth is not so much objective, subjective or absolute as much as it is a perspective on past, present and future, perspective being the relationship of parts, time in this case, to one another. Truth is the knowledge and peace with one’s past, present and future which makes one free because he or she has come to terms and reconciled these things in their heart and mind. [5] Any bias between our past, present or future which cannot be explained will be exposed. Sometimes the quick assumption is to yell liar and hypocrite as opposed to maybe offering words that might guide that person towards a more complete reconciliation of truth. Matt’s definition that “belief is the state of accepting a proposition is true” is no less true than to say understanding is the state of accepting a proposition is true, that is, that it is truth. Here is an instance in which the proposition was not stated, but it is implied and also subsequently rejected.

When God counseled Cain about Cain’s anger and fallen countenance it was all for nothing. It was the first counseling session. The counseling was a failure. Cain went on to murder his brother. After he had murdered his brother Abel he disdainfully scorned God for asking him where was his brother. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Cain said. The implicit answer to God’s question before Cain fired his retort was that, yes, Cain, you are your brother’s keeper. The proposition about being the keeper of one’s brother was rejected by Cain. Effectively, Cain, who spoke and interacted with God, chose to not believe God. Instead, he chose to succumb to the carnal desires of his heart as in the particular instance of murdering his brother. The point being in this very early passage of scripture is that seeing and knowing God, such as did Cain, is neither a guarantee of obedience nor of belief in God.

the universe and the air we breathe

Here are two examples which have been accepted as verified and verifiable through the scientific method. The first is simple, near and present to every human being. It is air, that element which fills our lungs and sustains our life. Air is neither visible nor palpable by human beings. Yes, its effects become visible and palpable when pressure, such as in a storm, is applied to air. The second is the universe. Scientists understood, as recently as between 45 and 60 years ago, that the universe was infinite, that is, that it had always existed. They call this the steady-state theory. This earlier theory was chipped away and eventually, in a manner of speaking, banged out of existence through the work of Georges Lemaître, George Gamow, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson and many others. Clearly, to reproduce the beginning of the universe is not something which one can conduct in the laboratory. Yet, the theory concerning the beginning of the universe is not for this reason invalid or false and no less real than the air we breathe. While I could state, without any basis of support, that I understand the hypothesis concerning the origin of the universe is falsifiable or a falsifiable prediction, I will admit my own inadequacy and incompetence to do so. It is out of my pay grade.

the falsifiable predictability of the resurrection of Jesus

What I can say is that when the scientific hypothesis is applied to the resurrection of Jesus to test it the result is that it is a falsifiable prediction. This does not mean it renders it false or that it nullifies it. Even so, I expect some of my fellow brothers and sisters in the faith might have already jumped to a mistaken conclusion about my statement. It simply means that there is a plausible, alternate explanation and it is good for atheists to examine the alternate explanation and determine for themselves if these things are plausible and believable. Some may be tempted and resort to make a quick dismissal of the resurrection as wishful fairytale.

There is a bit of a similarity between the discussion concerning the universe and the resurrection. They both have to do with origins and  beginnings. If these were to be disproved than so be it. If all the tenets of faith in Jesus were inverted and placed as an upside down pyramid the resurrection would be at the sharp, pointy end of that pyramid. Even though I will state that it is superfluous to chase after every rabbit, that is, every little and big thing which the reader does not understand or rejects from the scripture, it is all for nothing if the claims and historicity of the reality of the resurrection remain unexamined. If the resurrection is indeed false, then the rest is of little significance or consequence and a wide and wild open-ended anything-goes free for all. Kind of a little like a wild (BIG) tusked bull elephant in a fine, pristine, glassware shop on a must.

The resurrection, unlike the origin of the universe, is much closer to us human beings. The reality of death keeps it close and real for us and does allow us to cast it into a hypothetical, far away, distant, parallel universe. Death is an everyday occurrence. It speaks to and of our human nature and desire to live. It is precisely why death is not the sole domain of scientists and philosophers and the reason why this is within anyone’s pay grade. There are several ideas which could be proposed to discredit the resurrection of Jesus. It is likely that none of these ideas are new. Some of these are mentioned in the scriptures and we will examine a couple of these now. No one reading these words has experienced death. Let me be more specific. No one has experienced physical death _ permanently, not a near-death experience from which the person returns to life with a testimony of his experience.

transformation of energy

Scientific knowledge has taught us that the energy which makes up solid matter, such as a rock, cannot be annihilated. It can only be transformed. Then, although it may no longer be visible or palpable to the senses it remains, theoretically, able to be combined or constituted back to its solid form. Although this may not have been done with a rock this is demonstrable and evident in the albeit less solid element of water. The solid form of water can be pressured until it transforms into vapor. Then, once the pressure is relieved the vapor is restored to its solid water form.

The standard response of the atheist to death is that it is final. Here are the death, burial and resurrection accounts as they appear in the four gospel accounts by Matthew,[1] Mark,[2] Luke [3] and John.[4] The occurrence of death for a person, according to the atheist, is as though he or she had never existed. How plausible and credible is this response to death? How is it that a lifeless form of solid matter such as a rock cannot be annihilated, but a human life form with all its information and intelligence ceases to exist as though it had never existed? Furthermore, that this lifeform cannot, like a rock, be restored to its original state or to life?

These are the claims which Jesus made, namely, that he would lay down his life and take it up from the dead, again. This was the restoration of life to a dead body and what had, according to atheists, ceased to exist as though it had never existed. Yes, I understand this can all be dismissed and discarded by the atheist, likely with heavy doses of mockery and ridicule, but this response hardly makes the response of atheists true. It is more profitable to examine the falsifiability of the resurrection.

The claim of the New Testament scriptures is that Jesus died, was buried and rose up from the dead on the third day. This is what Jesus had openly stated numerous times to friend and foe alike. It was not a private club secret among his disciples. This is the hypothesis for us to examine as to whether it is falsifiable. Here are just a couple.

Jesus did not die, but the disciples lied

The truth is that his public crucifixion was a glorious occasion for his adversaries. They were present at the crucifixion and cast their mockery, derision and contempt on him. Some of his disciples were also present at the crucifixion. Nobody denied his death. After his burial some women came to the tomb with intentions of completing the tradition preparations on the deceased. This preparation for burial had not been possible in the case of Jesus because of the approaching Sabbath. Among the witnesses who were present were the duty-bound Roman soldiers who had no vested interest in the entire matter and were simply doing their job as soldiers assigned to carry out the execution of death by crucifixion. They reported to Governor Pilate that Jesus was dead.

Jesus died, but he did not rise from the dead

The thought of the disciples mustering some farce and charade of joy over their dead leader is pathetic. The easy “show-me” proof is precisely what Thomas insisted in order for him to believe. Thomas was one of the disciples of Jesus who was absent the first time he appeared to the disciples. Jesus appeared to as many as five hundred at one time. The visual, verifiable proof that Thomas demanded was to see with his own eyes the holes in the hands of Jesus and to place his finger in those holes and the hole in his side in order for Thomas to believe. (Thomas, like all but one of the eleven disciples [minus Judas who had hanged himself] was not present at the crucifixion. Yet Thomas knew and was familiar with the account by those witnesses who were present that a Roman soldier had thrust his spear into Jesus’ side from which flowed blood and water.) Just as Roman soldiers had presided at the crucifixion they were also present to guard the tomb as requested of Pilate by the adversaries of Jesus.

The idea of whether Jesus did not die, but his disciples lied together with the idea that Jesus died, but he did not rise from the dead are falsifiable predictions. However, the testimony of the scriptures from believers and unbelievers alike plus human reason, and yes, logic and reason, indicate and strongly counter any dismissal of the resurrection as being a falsehood perpetrated on man and perpetuated by man for bad reasons or dishonest and insincere motives. The resurrection of Jesus, like anything else, is a falsifiable prediction, but given the above it is not falsified. There are those who have professed and proclaimed the resurrection from the first to the twenty first century even unto death. Their decision and commitment to do so came about when they were convinced that what they had heard, examined and assessed warranted a response to accept the risks. Furthermore, those deaths which occurred even while professing and proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus were not of unbelievers in the hands of believers, but by believers in the hands of unbelievers.

conclusion

The disciples did profess to believe in Jesus while he was alive and they walked and talked with him. Yet despite the fact that they had heard from him that he would rise up from the dead they wondered what that meant and could hardly grasp much less believe it. Some people, Christians perhaps, would likely admonish the disciples for their unbelief while unbelievers would likely point to this as hypocrisy. However, both of these responses may reflect a similar bias against which Matt admonishes his viewers.

I consider that their unbelief in response to the risen Jesus was as intended by Jesus. It was akin to removing the floaties on the beginner swimmer; let’s see if you have learned to float and swim. It is akin to removing the training wheels on the child’s bicycle. In the case of the disciples even when they saw Jesus with their own eyes Luke attests in his gospel account that they could not believe it because of their joy and amazement.[6] The disciples found themselves stripped, in a manner of speaking, of their floaties and training wheels and all their biases concerning how and what they thought they knew about Jesus. It was imperative that they now demonstrate to and for themselves the conviction of things which they had heard and of which they were now coming to be fully convinced.

The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus can be no more reproduced than the beginning of the universe. Neither of these phenomenon are for this reason false. In the same manner as we ponder the cosmos of the universe and make a determination so, too, the resurrection of Jesus calls for nothing more and nothing less. The disciples and unbelievers in the first century faced the same reality of death as what we face in the twenty first century.

Any attempt to dismiss the resurrection of Jesus because no one in the twenty first century has seen him is akin to dismissing the scientific hypothesis. It is to deny the theoretical possibility of pulverizing the lifeless, solid mass of energy of a rock in oblivion or water into invisible vapor and then each, theoretically, bringing both back to their original solid state. This is a reality. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe (first) it. It has to do with whether it aligns with basic natural science and basic human psychology. This is nothing deep, mystical, mysterious or profound. If it staggers the imagination so, too, do the wonders and vastness of the universe. Mockery and derision are not do they equate with comprehension or a cohesive understanding. Death is not something to be feared and it is definitely not something feared by Christians. This is not to say that there are not people who do live in fear of death, but their fear (or even that of some Christians) does not amount to an invalidation of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Read More

Is the Resurrection of Jesus a Falsifiable Prediction?

Atheists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists like to tout this claim about the so-called scientific theory: it can be repeatedly tested and, hence, verified. Scientific theory can, just as well, reveal falsifiable predictions. I understand the scientists’ use of the term. It is not the same as in the popular sense which views theory as something which is unsubstantiated and speculative. So, we do not need to chase down that rabbit hole. I do not take issue with this use of the term. I accept the use of the term and will abide by it in this article. Let’s keep in mind that the repeated testing of a theory does not equate to or require a replication of whatever is being tested in order for it to be verifiable or falsifiable. Also, I do not take issue with the claim that an aspect of the natural world can be repeatedly tested. Yes, all things ought to be subjected to testing.

---

Certainly, verification through rigorous testing such as ISO in the business and manufacturing sectors is highly valued. However, it does beg the question, how is that an accomplishment? How does that build knowledge? Yes, it is an important process for verification of processes, but the criteria for pass/fail in ISO is not set by outside sources, but by the very same client companies who are subject to the ISO audit. It is that client’s process operation which is audited  for adherence. Advocates of scientific theory tout it as far more than a method of investigation. The work of scientific theory is akin to repeatedly testing a battery charge which will go from a positive charge to a negative charge eventually; a process of degradation on which the tester causes no significant effect. It is in this respect that the ISO audit and the scientific theory do not yield, produce or build any knowledge. They merely direct the interested parties to what they need to observe. It is akin to an educational system which touts that its students passed a test. But have those students learned anything substantive beyond the facts which were necessary for them to learn in order to pass the test? My purpose is not to criticize scientific theory, although it is not above criticism and scrutiny. My purpose is to apply the scrutiny of a falsifiable prediction of scientific theory to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

What can scientific theory reveal about death?

Atheists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists expend much time and energy theorizing and testing. Generally, those areas of theorizing and testing involve either the vastly remote and infinitely distant in terms of billions of light years, the vastly long ago such as the beginning of the universe billions of years ago or the microscopically minute of molecular biology. Certainly, these areas of focus are important areas for study, but they are not exactly foremost in the daily lives of people. So, here is something which is foremost and does affect all human beings regardless of whether they are atheists, theists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists: it is death.

How does one test death to determine whether it leads to, according to nihilism, the annihilation of a meaningless human being at the time of death? Fundamental scientific theory tells us that there is nothing, for example a rock, which can be annihilated. It may cease to be visible and palpable, but it is not annihilated. The static energy of the rock is merely transformed into the dynamic energy of disassociated subatomic particles. This can be repeatedly tested with other things such as water. Theoretically, the subatomic makeup of the rock remains in the universe and can be recomposed and restored in the form of a rock, again. What the application of the method of scientific theory reveals about death is that death is the catalyst by which life, as stored energy in a human body suit, is transformed, and like the dynamic disassociated subatomic particles of the energy of a rock; life is capable of being recomposed and restored.  Life is no less capable than a rock of being transformed. This is the easy part.

The interesting point about this much touted bit of scientific information concerning the transformation from the state of static, solid matter of a rock into dynamic energy is that it is not applied to human beings when they die. This raises a couple of questions:

1   How is it that an inanimate, lifeless object with its vast subatomic information such as a rock can not be made to cease to exist but can merely be transformed into dynamic energy?

2   Yet, a human being with a vastly complex chemical and atomic makeup and a wealth of knowledge information of itself and its environment ceases to exist as though, according to the conclusions of atheists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists, it never existed in this world?

The meaninglessness of nihilism neither reflects nor reveals the work of scientific theory nor the result of repeated testing to determine whether death is a falsifiable prediction. Nihilism saddles itself with merely declaring life is meaningless, but it cannot begin to address much less anser the falsifiability of death. This is the hard challenge. The query continues.

Is the resurrection of Jesus a falsifiable prediction?

I expect that the question about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead would likely summon all manner of cynicism and mockery. Cynicism and mockery are like the meaninglessness of nihilism in that none of these capable, not that it would matter to the cynic and company, of articulating an alternative. This is not a surprise. However, do not be deceived or dazzled so as to mistake cynicism and mockery with the diligent work of scientific theory and the process of repeated testing to determine whether death or the resurrection are falsifiable predictions.

If the subatomic elements which make up a rock can theoretically and predictably come together again to form a rock, then why should a similar predictability be any less true of a human being when, just like another object or life in the universe, it dies. Scientists know and deal in the realm of events, such as the beginning of the universe. It is an event which cannot be replicated in the lab. The theories concerning the beginning of the universe may or may not be true. The scientist can only work within the realm of theory and with theory as a research tool. He does not need to replicate the beginning of the universe in the lab in order to conclude whether it is or is not falsifiable. The conclusion, or the results of testing of a theory, lead him to declare that repeated testing of theories concerning the beginning of the universe reveal that those tests do not and likely will not lead to a falsifiable prediction concerning the beginning of the universe. This is the understandable work of scientific theory. (Here is a brief and interesting article concerning the big bang theory and the beginning of the universe. See A. Penzias and R. Wilson on their discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background [CMB].)

Theory is the same resource available for the scientist to frame and explain his examination concerning the resurrection event of Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus, not unlike the beginning of the universe, does not need to be replicated by the scientist to determine whether or not the resurrection is a falsifiable prediction.

Jesus stated publicly to friend and foe alike that he would die and be buried and that he would rise again from the dead. He stated that he would rise up from the dead on the third day following his death by crucifixion. Essentially, Jesus revealed that he knew and had the code, that is, the scientific information, the authority, to take up his life from the grip of death and to rise up again. There have been others, as is often noted derisively, before and after Jesus who made similar claims. However, the question here is where are those who made those claims? They pass from this life along with their claims about their own death, burial and resurrection are like the rock when it is obliterated. They were cast from this life into death without ever substantiating or fulfilling their claims. There was no transformation, no restored life to their dead bodies.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is what reveals that death is a falsifiable prediction.

What Jesus demonstrated is that death has no power, hence, it is a falsifiable prediction.

Jesus revealed that the resurrection from the dead is not a falsifiable prediction.

The resurrection of Jesus is a falsifiable prediction because his disciples could have stolen his lifeless body and lied about him being being raised from the dead. Death is not an event which occurs on a microscopic level or in a place light years away from earth. It is daily, common occurrence for humans.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead revealed that death had no power over him. If he did not rise from the dead there would be no disciples to proclaim his resurrection even under threat of death and later unto laying down their lives for what they could not deny.

Hence, the resurrection of Jesus is not falsified.

This is not to say that death does not occur. Death does occur. However, the point of the scriptures is precisely that it counters the mocking notion of atheists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists that the grave of death is the ultimate end and existence of a human being as though he or she had never existed. This is the falsifiable prediction of death. There is no denying and it is true, not false, that Jesus died by crucifixion.

The resurrection of Jesus complements scientific theory

The fact is that what Jesus claimed and fulfilled concerning his death, burial and resurrection exactly complements scientific theory and scientific knowledge concerning matter and energy and that these are merely transformed. Jesus himself emerged from death with a transformed body which his disciples were able to see and touch. Hence, his claims and the fulfillment of those claims is not a falsifiable prediction. Those claims and the fulfillment of those claims mirror the same scientific theory concerning the transformation and theoretical restoration of matter and energy. The claims and fulfillment of those claims by Jesus concerning himself is not a vastly remote, distant or obscure reality. It is a as close and real for every human being as it was for Jesus.

conclusion

The claims and the fulfillment of those claims are to Jesus what scientific theory and falsifiable predictions are to scientists. Just as scientists point out that theory is not an unsubstantiated speculation so to the claims of Jesus are not unsubstantiated speculation. The fulfillment of those claims can bear and stand up to the scrutiny of scientific theory and its repeated testing and its conclusions concerning the transformation of matter and energy. Certainly, from a human perspective those claims and theories are usually presented by their respective adherents as two totally separate and never-to-be-associated responses to life and to death. But, for better or worse, they concern all human beings. When the claims of Jesus concerning his death, burial and resurrection in the first century were realized there was no denial of those facts. However, this does not mean that even those in the first century who experienced it and knew about the resurrection necessarily accepted the reality and the implications of the resurrection of Jesus for themselves much less mankind. The same reality and implications, even if not repeatable, are not falsifiable. It is the burden on the backs of atheists, naturalists, scientists, humanists and evolutionists.

This is no different than running a test repeatedly in the twenty first century. The test results will speak for themselves. The tester is free to accept or reject the results of those tests. He could even forge or force the test results, but this is not necessary. He has the free will to accept or deny, like those first century witnesses, what the test results reveal for him. Even the skeptical scientist knows that according to scientific theory an event, such as the beginning of the universe need not necessarily be replicated to be verifiable, true and not a falsifiable prediction. Similarly, the resurrection of Jesus need not necessarily be replicated in order to be true and verifiable and true and not a falsifiable prediction.

Read More

T'is The Season

Every year the saints in Christ are confronted with every religious holiday such as Christmas. They are confronted either by their own conscience or by others for their holiday practices and observances. Often the condemnation and justification for the observance of Christmas is filled with wrong information and outright ignorance by those who judge and those who are judged. I would like to take a brief moment to hopefully edify and encourage my brothers and sisters in the faith. You can apply this to Christmas, but it holds true of any holiday.

The apostle Paul in Romans 14 had something to say about those saints who feel compelled to judge their brothers and sisters who observe a holiday. He had something to say, as well, to those who feel compelled to judge their brothers and sisters who do not observe a holiday. Two of the searing charges made against the observance by Christians of the Christmas holiday is that 1) the holiday does not appear in the scriptures, and 2) the origins of Christmas are pagan.

Read More

The Begotten Son

The Begotten Son is the subject of so much back and forth particularly as this refers or applies to Jesus, and more pointedly, how it refers to Jesus.

the name of God

One of simple but key points which the saints in Christ continue to overlook and forget was the poor, mistaken notions which the Jews conjured up concerning the name of God. Lest any one of them might even unwittingly or inadvertently misuse or blaspheme the name of God the Jews thought to implement what they doubtlessly thought was an improvement, as men tend to do, over what God had declared.

Read More

Disproving Christianity: Jesus is a LIE

This is a very brief comment on the video which bear the same title as this article. I encourage you to view Jaclyn Glen’s video. The content is nothing new to me and it is likely not new to some of you, too. Below are just a few quotations offered as a sampling of the video content. My apologies if I have erred in my transcription of the audio recording.

She has a “mountain of evidence against the Christian version of God.”

“There’s no such thing as hell, really, until you get to the New Testament.”

“The Bible was written by people that are influenced by the biases of the time period that they lived in.”

“There are so many stories, mythological stories before Jesus that had almost the same exact story line that he had.”

She states that these stories and myths about gods share various elements in common including the virgin birth, son of god, gifts of myrrh, brought salvation to people, died as a martyr, - some on a cross, and rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and that story is not unique to Jesus.

Horus, Krishna, Mithra: “The point is these three gods had so much in common with the story of Jesus. All came before him and it seems like nobody knows about this. I didn’t know it until quite recently.”

“How could you possibly credit it (Christianity) as being original and believe it completely?”

*    *   *

First, I appreciate your sincere, even if unoriginal charges, concerning Jesus and the faith that is in Christ Jesus. Second, I appreciate that you see and have noted the many similarities between the gods Horus, Krishna and Mithra, and Jesus. I do not intend to refute every point in your video and I will limit my comments to a brief and general response.

You are correct on a particular point which I (quite unoriginal) have long made about Jesus. He was not original in his message. People in different cultures and different times had been exposed to the same message prior to the appearance of Jesus in the world. This has never been much of a point, even if some saints in Christ get hung up in their futile attempts to deny and distance Jesus from these particulars, of contention or dismay for many other (myself, included) saints.

A couple of things which you state, but of which you do not seem to catch the significance and the implications. Namely, that 1) the beliefs and claims of followers of Horus, Krishna and Mithra (and I am aware there are others) were limited to a particular people, time and place. Yes, it can well be argued there may be a billion followers of Krishna, but this is not due to a wide dissemination and embrace of his message outside of India as much as the great numbers of the indigenous population of India.

The 2) faith that is in Christ Jesus (note: Although I do not have a problem with people’s use of the term “Christianity” I have no use for it as it is the world’s corruption of a message written for all to read.) began among a people who for the most part despised and rejected Jesus. Although it began among the Jews and the message of Jesus as written by his disciples was in Greek (the dominant language of the world at the time) it was never claimed nor has it ever been viewed as the religion of the Jews or the Greeks. Unlike the message of Horus, Krishna and Mithra whose message and followers was limited to a particular people, (regardless of number) culture and time; the faith that is in Jesus was never and has never been limited or restricted to a people, culture or time. Have you considered how this element of disdain for Jesus versus the deities whom you mention? In our present time the world can see a prime example of the same limited phenomenon which characterizes these gods in the faith of Islam as practiced predominantly by Arabs in the Arabic language. Interesting side note: Arabs insist that converts to Islam learn Arabic. This is in sharp contrast with the faith that is in Jesus because there was never, even in the first century, any insistence for the disciples of Jesus to learn Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

So, what is the single point in the message of the New Testament concerning Jesus which despite it being similar with Horus, Krishna and Mithra sets Jesus apart? It is the resurrection; a vital point which much like the similarities by which you are fascinated you have, to understate it, overlooked its significance and implications. Lets put aside for the moment (much like you put aside various particulars concerning alleged contradictions in the Bible) the awareness and measures taken by state and hostile religious authorities concerning the event of the resurrection BEFORE it happened and AFTER it happened.

There is a question for everyone after the haze and dust has cleared from their minds and from before their eyes. It is all about similarities which every disciple of Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Jesus and every theist and atheist human being, plant and animal share in common. The similarity which we all is life and death.

None of us remembers the moment or day of our birth. We are told where and when and to whom we were born. However, death is an appointment which everyone of us shares in common with every human being (-1) since the beginning of time. Our death is no less real merely because we read about it from different and ancient or even questionable sources as something which we share in common with those who have gone on before us. Even if we don’t read or hear about someone else’s death we need look no further than others around us including plants and animals.

So, does it seem insignificant that the claims and reality of the resurrection of Jesus were not a private secret known only to a select few? Is it possible that there are implications concerning that resurrection and if so, what are those implications? How is that what was as common and similar as the resurrection among the deities of Horus, Krishna and Mithra was grasped by people, even while being being rejected, though not denied by adversaries, of different languages, cultures and times unlike any of those prior to Jesus?

Read More

The Singularity

My comments on the Singularity are limited to this Time magazine February 2011 article. I recommend you read it, first. I have no reason to ridicule or otherwise dismiss as fantastic or foolish the plausibility of the Singularity: the moment, projected as 2045, when computers and technology (specifically, biotechnology and nanotechnology) will surpass human intelligence. I have neither the science nor the mathematics background to speak to this subject, but I am also neither alarmed nor concerned about the future and the Singularity. So, my comments on the Singularity are limited to my reading and understanding of this article. It features Ray Kurzweil as champion of the Singularity and as such I understand that unless there is an indication to the contrary the views expressed in the article, such as concerning death, represent Ray Kurzweil’s own views.

let’s talk

Kurzweil and his colleagues’ talk about the Singularity is not new. Yes, that statement flies in the face of precisely what is highly exalted by Ray Kurzweil and Singularitians. Specifically, it is the knowledge on which the Singularity, the veritable child conceived of technology to be birthed in the near future.

The transformation of humankind, circa 2045, into immortal cyborgs or something other than what was once recognized as human will mark the of the human era. (Vernor Vinge) Kurzweil brushes aside the controversy which the idea of significant changes to human longevity evokes in some people. Those are the people, according to Kurzweil, who have invested much personal effort in certain philosophies on the issues of life and death and to whom he defers dismissively:  I mean, that's the major reason we have religion. Really? As in, talk among yourselves about religion? This reply seems disingenuous because the reality is that the human experience of life and death do not occur on the basis of an individual’s knowledge, philosophy or religion. So, lets talk.

an open door

The quest for immortality, that coveted cache of the Singularity, does not concern itself with life, that wonderfully unique and extraordinary sentient experience of humans. Actually, the Singularitians’ quest is to bypass death through a download of consciousness unto hardware where, those who choose not to die, can live as immortal, functionally. I am not interested in scenarios of potential natural disasters which could possibly affect, incapacitate or destroy that hardware. What does interest me is that Kurzweil either unwittingly, dismissively, or mockingly, opens the door to religion. Although the term religion, given how it is commonly misunderstood and misused, is not a term which I prefer or care to use I can lay that aside as a matter of minor significance.

bypassing death

So, the Singularity purports to overcome or bypass death through the excellence of knowledge?  Kurzweil has done much work to measure and track the exponential pace of technological progress, present, future and backward to 1900. Given such thoroughness and his glib pronouncement about reverse-engineering the human brain and humans saturating all the matter in the universe in a few centuries why stop there? Why not apply a similar method to determine the cause of death?

Kurzweil’s mistaken view concerning the problem of death is, first, to cast (or at least intimate) death as a problem of old age and nothing more than an illness, and second, to solve that problem through some manipulation of DNA.

the first Singularity

Although I fully expect the ridicule and dismissal by Singularitians and others that would be no different than Singularitians themselves receive concerning the Singularity. The Singularity is not only inevitable but it is imminent, according to Kurzweil, and there’s really not much we can do about it. This is about where I would expect the ridicule, mockery and dismissal of Singularitians should kick in.

The truth is even the self-descriptor of the Singularity and Singularitian, as in singular, single or one, fails to distinguish it from the age-old story of mankind in the book of Genesis in the Bible, and _ the first Singularity. (see, Genesis chapter 3) That first Singularity also involved man and knowledge. Unfortunately, that first Singularity in the garden was not when man became immortal, but when he became mortal; that is, when he became like God. The pairing of man and technology, that is knowledge, by Singularitians is not only present in the biblical narrative, but the narrative relates the convergence of man and knowledge. There is nothing new under the sun, said Solomon.

knowledge and death

What was it that God declared made man like God? It was the knowledge of good and evil.

Even then, the desire of the woman and the man was not so much to be like God, but to be God: singular, one, capable of determining and controlling their own destiny.

This is nothing less and no different than the Singularitian Kurzweil’s expectations of the Singularity of the future. However, the concept (that is the desire of the woman for what she saw before her eyes) and reality (that is, the convergence of man and knowledge) in the first Singularity in the garden did not result in immortality. It marked the beginning of the end, of death in the entirety of creation. This same demise is reflected throughout the universe. Things, both for man and his world, are not getting better. The are in deterioration and decline. The inception of death, in the simplest terms by way of an analogy, involved the convergence of the fruit (hardware) followed by knowledge (software) which transformed the woman and the man. Pressing that analogy further, even the casual computer user knows that software can be corrupted through willful or negligent changes which affect the original software. Even more, there are viruses which can cause physical damage to computer hardware. Yet, it is the nature of man to boast his genius and knowledge as being far greater and superior than all previous generations and master of his destiny, whether in the garden of Eden or in 2045,  _ or so he thinks.

escape

Singularitians may well snicker on hearing that disobedience was the root, or cause of death; but the somber nagging reality of death persists. The Singularity as an answer to death is merely to stretch and push back the parameters of death farther out. The inevitable and imminent occurrence much like Kurzweil states about the Singularity is no less true of death. Kurzweil’s hard, calculated response on the inevitableness of the Singularity holds equally true of death. Death came about as the result of defiance to the One who knows good and evil. It is not surprising that the Singulartians’ escape from death should be through knowledge, because knowledge was what opened the door for death to come into the world for the ruin and destruction of man.

technospeak

Is a record of antiquity to be rejected merely because it is not new, definitely not hi-tech or in the familiar shape of manufactured products or shrouded in the vernacular of technospeak? Especially, when that record relates the vital relationship between knowledge and death? The irony is that the Singularitians’ enlightened, knowledge-filled, linear, chemical, animal brain does not seem to acknowledge the omnipresence of both death and knowledge in the universe. Downloading one’s consciousness unto some hardware does not alter that reality. The notion of escaping death is as mistaken as the notion in the garden that the man and woman would not die.

The newness of technology and technospeak is as much an allure today as a fruit was for Eve. The relative newness of knowledge is the gauge by which some, such as Singularitians, value intelligence. There is no room, no place for what is old, whether it is knowledge or technology. Others value the size; bigger equals more intelligent. I am reminded of the line by a character in Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek: “Size is not a measure of intelligence.” (Spock) Even Stephen Hawking when sounding the alarm about alien visitors to Earth, friendly or hostile, says they will arrive in enormously large ships.

conclusion: reversing the first Singularity

The first Singularity in the garden of Eden resulted in death when man acquired the knowledge of good and evil through something as seemingly harmless and innocuous as a fruit. (You may amuse yourself as you wish as to that fruit. It is one of those matters of small significance for myself.) So, whatever prospects of reversing the effects of that first Singularity must necessarily address, both, knowledge and death and why it continues to affect man.

There is something to be said for Ray Kurzweil’s audacious claims about the Singularity. It is not a little secret. It is not obscure. It is plain. Those who have an open-mind to it as well as those who are close-mind to it have heard it. He has proclaimed it and promoted it aggressively. All of which has yet to be fulfilled.

Jesus made audacious claims concerning his death, burial and resurrection. It was not a little secret. His claims were not obscure. They were plain. Those claims were heard by friend and foe alike. He proclaimed and promoted this message aggressively. He fulfilled it.

This, not the death or the burial, but the resurrection of Jesus is the reversal of the first Singularity. The resurrection is not merely an escape or avoidance of death, but a triumph and defeat over death; a transformation from the perishable and corruptible to the imperishable and incorruptible. The resurrection revealed the Creator, giver and sustainer of life who took on the form, that is, the outward appearance of man in order to lay down his life and take it up again. Thereby, his resurrection was a declaration that death has no power over him. (Is the resurrection any less plausible than the Singularitians’ vision of immortality on hand-made hardware?) This was the God of the knowledge of good and evil who came into the world two thousand years ago.

And, like those claims he made and fulfilled two thousand years ago, he has declared he will come again at an undisclosed time.

(I refer adherents of the Torah as well as unbelievers who cannot fathom the idea of the sacrifice of Jesus to read: Human Sacrifice at Moriah and Egypt)

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will still live, even if he dies. 26  Whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11)

But this I confess to you, that after the Way, which they call a sect, so I serve the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets; 15 having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. (Acts 24)

 Behold,‡ I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must become imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable body will have become imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”✡

55 “Death, where is your sting?

Hades,§ where is your victory?”✡

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the Lord’s work, because you know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. (I Corinthians 15)

Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation. (Hebrews 9)

“Behold, I come quickly. My reward is with me, to repay to each man according to his work. 13  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14  Blessed are those who do his commandments,† that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. 15  Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 16  I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David; the Bright and Morning Star.” (Revelation 24)

Read More