Yes or No?

[Athetotheist]

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. (Matthew 28:2-3)

Did Mary Magdalene see this happen or did she not?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #48

"Paradox: a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."

The Law of Non-Contradiction:
A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

This means that Mary Magdalene could not see a shining angel sitting on the stone and not see a shining angel sitting on the same stone at the same time.

what about this statement:
"Quantum physics has demonstrated that tiny particles can exist in multiple places at once, but a new method may prove that it is possible for larger, visible objects to also exist in multiple places."
https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2020 ... e-possible

How do you think the law of non-contradiction and that maek sense with one another?


Edit: this site give an explaantion:
"The law of non-contradiction refers to any proposition that is well defined. Many propositions that we would take for granted to be well defined (e.g. "the electron is inside the circle") is not well defined in the framework of quantum mechanics."

But if that is true, in order for the Law of Non-contradiction to be a valid argument here, our proposition would have to be well defined. It certainly is not well defined. We dont know exactly what Mary did that day.

We do know what she was supposedly doing at that moment----arriving at the tomb. And she isn't supposed to have seen a quantum particle; she's supposed to have seen an angel----and not to have seen him in the same place at the same time.

A quantum particle in multiple places at once appears in all of those places. The quantum analogy might fit if the texts said that the angel was on the stone and somewhere else, but they don't. One narrative has him in one place and the others have him not in that place at the same time.

“But neither so did their witness agree together.” (Mark 14:59)

If you're going to be open to mystical interpretation, then you can't discount the interpretations of others. For example:

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/maya.asp

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #48

"Paradox: a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."

The Law of Non-Contradiction:
A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

This means that Mary Magdalene could not see a shining angel sitting on the stone and not see a shining angel sitting on the same stone at the same time.

what about this statement:
"Quantum physics has demonstrated that tiny particles can exist in multiple places at once, but a new method may prove that it is possible for larger, visible objects to also exist in multiple places."
https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2020 ... e-possible

How do you think the law of non-contradiction and that maek sense with one another?


Edit: this site give an explaantion:
"The law of non-contradiction refers to any proposition that is well defined. Many propositions that we would take for granted to be well defined (e.g. "the electron is inside the circle") is not well defined in the framework of quantum mechanics."

But if that is true, in order for the Law of Non-contradiction to be a valid argument here, our proposition would have to be well defined. It certainly is not well defined. We dont know exactly what Mary did that day.

We do know what she was supposedly doing at that moment----arriving at the tomb. And she isn't supposed to have seen a quantum particle; she's supposed to have seen an angel----and not to have seen him in the same place at the same time.

A quantum particle in multiple places at once appears in all of those places. The quantum analogy might fit if the texts said that the angel was on the stone and somewhere else, but they don't. One narrative has him in one place and the others have him not in that place at the same time.

“But neither so did their witness agree together.” (Mark 14:59)

quantum particles gave a reason to doubt the law of Non-contradiction, but only because it is not well defined for them. Rightly so. You are assuming a contradiction, but the evidence for it is very limited. It certainly is not well defined. My explanations in #37 are still rational explanations.

If you're going to be open to mystical interpretation, then you can't discount the interpretations of others. For example:

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/maya.asp

I dont think you understand how I feel about other religions. I am fully open to other religions having mystical qualities, and i suppose Christianity itself would admit that mystical properties can exists outside of the Christian God. For there are stories of Satan doing things of supernatural qualities.

The main reason i dont believe in other religions is because I believe in Jesus Christ. But that aside, at many times I have thought it is possible for other religions to claim mystical, supernatural things. And surely if we get to the root of skepticism, the place i usually reside, all of existence can be seen as a mystical kind of thing.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #52

quantum particles gave a reason to doubt the law of Non-contradiction, but only because it is not well defined for them. Rightly so. You are assuming a contradiction, but the evidence for it is very limited. It certainly is not well defined.

Your argument itself is not well-defined. Your own source admits that macro-superpositioning is not supported by current theory and that evidence of it is lacking:

"Over the past 20 years, experimentalists have created quantum states in objects of trillions of atoms – large enough to be seen with the naked eye.

Despite this, they have yet to show that linear superposition can occur with objects of this size."

And you're ignoring what I mentioned about the angel being in one place and not being there at the same time, which isn't a quantum effect. So if quantum particles give a reason to doubt the law of non-contradiction, they don't do so in the way you're relying on.

My explanations in #37 are still rational explanations.

I believe I pointed out the shortcomings of your post #37 in my post #39.

I dont think you understand how I feel about other religions. I am fully open to other religions having mystical qualities, and i suppose Christianity itself would admit that mystical properties can exists outside of the Christian God. For there are stories of Satan doing things of supernatural qualities.

The main reason i dont believe in other religions is because I believe in Jesus Christ.

Since Christianity claims to be an extension of Judaism, the Christian Bible has to be read----and interpreted----in the context of the Jewish Bible:

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)

Just because Christian theology labels something satanic doesn't mean that it is.


Islam claims that an angel delivered the Quran to Muhammed. Christianity claims that an angel sat on a stone----and that he didn't. How is the latter claim to be preferred over the former? The bottom line is that you're not succeeding in establishing the Christian claim as being in any way superior to other mystical claims.

[Difflugia]

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. (Matthew 28:2-3)

Did Mary Magdalene see this happen or did she not?

According to the grammar in Matthew, the angel had already descended when Mary and Mary arrived. Then while the two watched, the angel rolled away the stone and perched upon it.

In Mark, Luke, and John, the stone was already rolled back when the various combinations of women got there.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #54

In Mark, Luke, and John, the stone was already rolled back when the various combinations of women got there.

Yup, and no angel atop it.