Disprove god!

[ComradeDavo]

I find it likely that some dude named Jesus walked on the ground, not on the water, two millennia ago but it's not even close to proving God's existence even if he performed some tricks widely known as miracles. Vice versa his possible non-existence is not a definitive proof God's non-existence but it'd make the Christianity looking even more weird than it already does.

G

100's if not 1000's of 'dudes named Jesus' walked on the ground back then. it was quite a common name.
From wiki: The proper name Jesus used in the English language originates from the Latin form of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua (ישו&#1506, also having the variants Joshua or Jeshua

 

[Traitorfish]

For me, adapting their faith when a fundamental pillar of it was 'disproven' would be a sign that the faith itself is without a doubt flawed. I think alot of others would feel that way as well.

Is "the faith" something monolithic? As I said, most Christians distinguish between natural and revealed proofs, and the inaccuracy of a revealed proof has no bearing on the accuracy of natural proofs. Many Christians and Muslims differ hugely on the which revealed proofs are and are not valid, but accept much the same set of natural proofs.

Ok. So your questioning my tatics of disputing religion then?

I don't think that you're really disputing religion at all, to be honest. The historicity of Jesus is a pretty muddy historiographical debate which has been going on for around two centuries, and all we've really been able to establish in that time is how little we actually know, and how limited the possibility for real conclusions actually are. It's only possible to loop it back round to religion again if you distort the facts to fit your conclusions, in which case you're no better- possibly worse- than those you rail against.

 

[Grendeldef]

100's if not 1000's of 'dudes named Jesus' walked on the ground back then.

Quite so and who knows what they did or did not do and I'm familiar with the variations in spelling due to national & linguistic adaptations but since this is an English-speaking forum I limited myself to using the English version of the name, locally I'd spell it 'Jeesus'. The spelling, though, is hardly relevant to God's potential existence.

G

 

[ComradeDavo]

Is "the faith" something monolithic? As I said, most Christians distinguish between natural and revealed proofs, and the inaccuracy of a revealed proof has no bearing on the accuracy of natural proofs. Many Christians and Muslims differ hugely on the which revealed proofs are and are not valid, but accept much the same set of natural proofs.


I don't think that you're really disputing religion at all, to be honest. The historicity of Jesus is a pretty muddy historiographical debate which has been going on for around two centuries, and all we've really been able to establish in that time is how little we actually know, and how limited the possibility for real conclusions actually are. It's only possible to loop it back round to religion again if you distort the facts to fit your conclusions, in which case you're no better- possibly worse- than those you rail against.

To me Christinaity has Jesus at it's central point, and to take away that central point is to render the religion defunct. If you disagree then fair enough, don't see how we can debate it any further. I wouldn't say I was distorting facts, just challenging the 'accepted' version of Jesus history.

Quite so and who knows what they did or did not do and I'm familiar with the variations in spelling due to national & linguistic adaptations but since this is an English-speaking forum I limited myself to using the English version of the name, locally I'd spell it 'Jeesus'. The spelling, though, is hardly relevant to God's potential existence.

G

I wasn't meaning to be citical, just pointing out obvious fact that just because there would have been someone named Jesus doesn't mean it was 'the' Jesus.

 

[Grendeldef]

I wasn't meaning to be citical, just pointing out obvious fact that just because there would have been someone named Jesus doesn't mean it was 'the' Jesus.

Yup, I still agree. The problem lies with the limited time, & effort people can or are willing to spend while making a statement which then is easily is misinterpreted by accident or on purpose or it creates more questions than provides solutions. Unfortunate but unavoidable.

G

 

[Traitorfish]

To me Christinaity has Jesus at it's central point, and to take away that central point is to render the religion defunct. If you disagree then fair enough, don't see how we can debate it any further.

I agree that Christian theology hinges on the Christ narrative in some form or another- I mean, it's in the name- but I don't think that Christians are without theological tools that function independently of that narrative. Removing Christ from their cosmology does not cause them to fall by default into atheism, it simply obliges them to accept a modified theism.

I wouldn't say I was distorting facts, just challenging the 'accepted' version of Jesus history.

I think that any presentation of the facts as suggesting either the existence or non-existence of Yehoshuah of Nazareth is a distortion. The simple reality is that we do not know enough to conclude one way or the other; all we can really say is that his existence is not infeasible.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I agree that Christian theology hinges on the Christ narrative in some form or another- I mean, it's in the name- but I don't think that Christians are without theological tools that function independently of that narrative. Removing Christ from their cosmology does not cause them to fall by default into atheism, it simply obliges them to accept a modified theism.

I wasn't claiming it would default them to atheism. I'm just saying that, for me at least, the fact they would modify it goes to show it's futility.

I think that any presentation of the facts as suggesting either the existence or non-existence of Yehoshuah of Nazareth is a distortion. The simple reality is that we do not know enough to conclude one way or the other; all we can really say is that his existence is not infeasible.

So are you saying that we should not question things or form our own opinions? Is not a forum like this one here to give our opions? Why post otherwise?

 

[Traitorfish]

I wasn't claiming it would default them to atheism. I'm just saying that, for me at least, the fact they would modify it goes to show it's futility.

Why? All valid statements of belief are open to falsification. "I believe that humans evolved from apes" is a falsifiable belief, for example, but it's not futile, or at least not if you think that the study of human evolution has any merit. A futile belief, if anything, is one that permits no falsification, and so can't hope to be anything more than speculation.

So are you saying that we should not question things or form our own opinions? Is not a forum like this one here to give our opions? Why post otherwise?

I'm saying that it's bad form to start with your conclusion ("Christianity is wrong") and then interpret the historical record in such a manner as to support that position. (And, equally, the reverse: to look at the vague and inconclusive historical record surrounding Yehoshuah of Nazareth, and conclude that he definitely existed.)

 

[ComradeDavo]

Why? All valid statements of belief are open to falsification. "I believe that humans evolved from apes" is a falsifiable belief, for example, but it's not futile, or at least not if you think that the study of human evolution has any merit. A futile belief, if anything, is one that permits no falsification, and so can't hope to be anything more than speculation.

I think your understanding of oragnised religion differes from mine.

I take religion to mean that you have set of beliefs based on certain principals. Obviously there are differing forms of Christianity but still the Bible, of which Jesus is the central figure of the New Testament, is the number one most important aspect of organised Christinity. Take away Jesus and you have no New Testament, thus the whole foundation of organised Christianity is gone. To me that means that the whole religion is, as I said, defunct.

If you disagree then lets just agree to disagree because I really have no wish to repeat that anymore. If you feel differently then fair enough, but to me thats just how it is, it's how I feel about the religion.

I'm saying that it's bad form to start with your conclusion ("Christianity is wrong") and then interpret the historical record in such a manner as to support that position. (And, equally, the reverse: to look at the vague and inconclusive historical record surrounding Yehoshuah of Nazareth, and conclude that he definitely existed.)

I'm not essay writing, i'm posting on a forum for a computer game!

 

[timtofly]

I think your understanding of oragnised religion differes from mine.

I take religion to mean that you have set of beliefs based on certain principals. Obviously there are differing forms of Christianity but still the Bible, of which Jesus is the central figure of the New Testament, is the number one most important aspect of organised Christinity. Take away Jesus and you have no New Testament, thus the whole foundation of organised Christianity is gone. To me that means that the whole religion is, as I said, defunct.

If you disagree then lets just agree to disagree because I really have no wish to repeat that anymore. If you feel differently then fair enough, but to me thats just how it is, it's how I feel about the religion.


I'm not essay writing, i'm posting on a forum for a computer game!

I would have to agree with you that Christianity is a defunct religion, since it was never intended to be a religion. There is such a thing as a personal relationship that has nothing to do with religion, but then there are few who agree with that also.

Maybe there are some who like to think that there is wanting some kind of hierarchy to boss people around. That was never the spirit of Jesus. I am pretty sure that there may have been some aspect of peace that the writers thought enough about to put them down in written form, but it was not found through fighting but following. To some that may be a dichatomy that is hard to accept, but some have found such a path through the NT even though others seem to get sidetracked with other issues.

So yes it is possible to reason away even the need to have a Jesus, but there is still a spirit there that even philosphy can not logically do away with, and even science cannot falsify.

 

[Harv]

100's if not 1000's of 'dudes named Jesus' walked on the ground back then. it was quite a common name.

Look up John, Chapter 19, Verse 19. I will quote from HCSB.

Spoiler :

Pilate also had a sign lettered and put on the cross. The inscription was:
JESUS THE NAZARENE
THE KING OF THE JEWS
Many of the Jews read this sign, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.

This description is pretty unique. Also, given that this is a very public event, occuring in Jerusalem at Passover. Add to that all the weird stuff that was going on at the same time. It would be very difficult to simply make this story up and distribute it to gullible first century people.

The Gospel of Matthew was not written by 'Matthew'.
The Gospel of John's authorship is disputed.
Both were written many years after Jesus's apparent death.

Do you think Matthew was written before 110AD or before 95 or before 70? (70 was the year the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. This is a very important event.)

In any case, Matthew states that the story that the disciples came during the night has been spread among Jewish people to this day. If the story of the crucifixion was simply made up, then why would the Jewish people not respond by saying they have never heard of Jesus? Further, why would they go to such effort to explain why they could never find the body?

What have you heard of the Fire of Rome in 64AD? Nero blamed the Christians and started a persecution against the Christians.

So we know Christians existed in 64AD because Nero was attacking them. This is only 31 years after the date of the crucifixion I gave earlier. It is entirely possible (certain actually) that people who witnessed the crucifixion (or at least were in Jerusalem when the crucifixion supposedly took place) would still be alive.

I won't believe unless i'm presented evidence from his apparent lifespan, and there isn't any at the momenent, so there we go.

There is nothing wrong with saying that you have not seen enough evidence, and therefore have not arrived at a conclusion. All I was reacting to was the proposition that Jesus never existed due to lack of solid historical evidence.


EDIT: More on the specific topic, it might be better to disprove discredit dismiss the Creation account in Genesis Chapter 1 (This and the following couple of chapters form the foundation of Christianity) and provide an alternate theory. Open pretty much any textbook on ancient history and prehistory and you will see this.

 

[Arakhor]

Creationism and Christianity are absolutely not synonymous, though being American might lead you to that belief.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

More on the specific topic, it might be better to disprove discredit dismiss the Creation account in Genesis Chapter 1 (This and the following couple of chapters form the foundation of Christianity) and provide an alternate theory. Open pretty much any textbook on ancient history and prehistory and you will see this.

Why should one provide an alternate theory?

Something isn't true or false until an alternative is found. Something is true or false, and with no alternative theory we simply have no idea. In case of Genisis and Creationism, there is no theory to debunk, because Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It's not even a hypothesis. It's a baseless claim which has no place in science.

 

[Berzerker]

No. Dante named the layers of Heaven after the the Sun, the Moon and the five planets, not the layers of Hell. It would make no sense at all to suggest that Hell was also an analogue of the Celestial Spheres.

Dante's "Hell" is based on far older cosmologies, the Egyptian Duat began as a journey underground but the destination was the sky. The book "Hamlet's Mill" goes into the celestial imagery in the Inferno, the 9 levels are in the sky, not underground.

Berzerker, you're claiming that the number nine in the Babylonian creation myth refers to the number of planets in our solar system? I find that quite odd, since there are definitely not nine planets in our solar system, no matter how you count them. If we see planets as spheres orbiting a star which have cleared all debris in their orbits, then there are eight. If we take away the last requirement of the debris, then there are more than nine.

The authors of the Babylonian creation myth didn't have the luxury of our modern definition, they included a 9th planet and Pluto fits the description. But if you insist on leaving Pluto out of the picture, that still leaves 8 planets waiting for Marduk to battle Tiamat.

 

[Arakhor]

What is the precise description that you say fits Pluto?

 

[Berzerker]

Then all you have said so far contains no real argument for why the texts you are talking about match reality.

The text describes more planets than your 5... That is the reality.

What's special about the perihelion?

Thats where Saturn's equatorial plane points... But I imagine thats just the tip of the iceburg

No, I don't. The Greeks were aware of only 5 planets (because they are the only ones that can be observed with the naked eye), so we can only be certain that they identified these planets with the gods of the same name.

And Democritus said there were planets we could not see

But my original question was "what is Tiamat in this contrived analogy?".

Your question confused Mummu with Tiamat - Tiamat is the biblical Tehom. The dark, water covered world in Gen 1:2

Oh, circular logic again. They are planets, and therefore the text must talk about orbits. Don't believe they are planets? But why is the text talking about orbits then?

Scholars recognize some of the "gods" in the Enuma Elish as planets, argue with them

What you are doing is plugging in random things, I was just joining your game. They are planets, planets have temperature. After they are created, they reach a certain temperature, that is their destiny. What else would make sense?

The text makes repeated references to orbits, not temperature

Still waiting for linguistical support.

Try reading the text

Interesting, Venus wasn't a warrior goddess at all. Do you admit that Ishtar and Venus are not the same?

I admit? WTH? I just said she was Inanna/Ishtar and she was a warrior goddess

I was talking about the planets *sigh*

I know, now explain why you think scholars are hacks for identifying planets in the Enuma Elish

What is the precise description that you say fits Pluto?

I already explained that, sorry

 

[Arakhor]

Then just cut and paste that bit or give a link. Come on.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Look up John, Chapter 19, Verse 19. I will quote from HCSB.

Spoiler :

Pilate also had a sign lettered and put on the cross. The inscription was:
JESUS THE NAZARENE
THE KING OF THE JEWS
Many of the Jews read this sign, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.

This description is pretty unique. Also, given that this is a very public event, occuring in Jerusalem at Passover. Add to that all the weird stuff that was going on at the same time. It would be very difficult to simply make this story up and distribute it to gullible first century people.



Do you think Matthew was written before 110AD or before 95 or before 70? (70 was the year the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. This is a very important event.)

In any case, Matthew states that the story that the disciples came during the night has been spread among Jewish people to this day. If the story of the crucifixion was simply made up, then why would the Jewish people not respond by saying they have never heard of Jesus? Further, why would they go to such effort to explain why they could never find the body?

What have you heard of the Fire of Rome in 64AD? Nero blamed the Christians and started a persecution against the Christians.

So we know Christians existed in 64AD because Nero was attacking them. This is only 31 years after the date of the crucifixion I gave earlier. It is entirely possible (certain actually) that people who witnessed the crucifixion (or at least were in Jerusalem when the crucifixion supposedly took place) would still be alive.


There is nothing wrong with saying that you have not seen enough evidence, and therefore have not arrived at a conclusion. All I was reacting to was the proposition that Jesus never existed due to lack of solid historical evidence.


EDIT: More on the specific topic, it might be better to disprove discredit dismiss the Creation account in Genesis Chapter 1 (This and the following couple of chapters form the foundation of Christianity) and provide an alternate theory. Open pretty much any textbook on ancient history and prehistory and you will see this.

Quotes from the Bible don't really do it for me.

So basically, I don't believe that some guy was the son of God and performed loads of magic and so forth. The evidence is very debatable, and certainally is not conclusive.

But hey, if you wanna believe some guy 2000 years ago was the son of some 'god' and performed loads of crazy magic tricks based on some very debatle writings, then go ahead, it's your life.

 

[CocoIsKing28]

Creationism and Christianity are absolutely not synonymous, though being American might lead you to that belief.

The Christian Bible includes a story of creation, does it not?

Why should one provide an alternate theory?

Something isn't true or false until an alternative is found. Something is true or false, and with no alternative theory we simply have no idea. In case of Genisis and Creationism, there is no theory to debunk, because Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It's not even a hypothesis. It's a baseless claim which has no place in science.

Thank you for this post. Rely on science before "history", since anyone can make up a story about, well, anything really.

 

[Leoreth]

The Christian Bible includes a story of creation, does it not?

Yes, and creationism holds that this story is a literal account of actual events. You don't have to believe the same to be a Christian.