Existence of God (split from old thread)

[Valka D'Ur]

It amuses me when people say that the existence of God can't be proven. It is quite easy to demonstrate that we have received a message from outside the time and space that we occupy. In that message, the author authenticates his message by accurately describing history beforehand. Clues to the deepest mysteries of physics, astronomy and medicine have been hidden in the message and modern science is slowly peeling away the layers to discover those truths. All that is just the supporting evidence. My reason for believing Him is that I've met Him.

Exactly which historical events were accurately described before they happened? Primary sources, please.

Plus things come back from the dead. That's good evidence.

What comes back from the dead? And don't say Lazarus or Jesus. There is no concrete proof that either of them existed, let alone came back from the dead.

The simplest explanation for the existence of the universe is that a higher power constructed it. Any explanation should start by dealing with the obvious.

Yeah, that's pretty simple, all right. I'm reminded of the summer when I babysat for a family and the middle boy kept asking questions about God. I wasn't going to lie to the kid, nor did I want to lose my job by telling him the truth as science knew it at that time (the family was religious). I told him to ask his mother, and privately hoped he would get more accurate explanations once he got into school.

A bit of this, a pinch of that, season to taste and bake 6 billion years.

What does 6 billion years have to do with this? It's neither the age of the universe, nor the age of our solar system.

Here's a question Atheists just can't answer: If God doesn't exist, who sent Jesus to Earth?
You'd have to be silly enough to believe Sons of God can materialize out of thin air.

First you're going to have to convince me that Jesus existed. There's no contemporaneous evidence that this specific person existed, let alone the supernatural part of the story.

When a man and a woman love each other very much ... a bee goes from flower to flower ....

Yeah, that was a cute, but sexist song in "The King and I"... according to the play, it was based on some old poem to excuse men's promiscuity.

Sorry to say that, but Big Bang is exactly magic and a creationist myth, wrapped in scientificism. A religious disgrace on the face of science. An invention of a Catholic priest, sponsored by a Catholic Church.

And in no way cosmology can be compared to biology. The latter is full of experiment, practice, evidence. The former is full of speculations, dogmas and beliefs.

The Big Bang is neither magic nor creationist myth. It's the best theory we've got so far, and if it's replaced by a better one some day as more accurate information comes in, that's how the scientific method works.

"God hypothesis" has been around for thousands of years and it gave us morals and philosophy. Try to imagine living in the world without morality. The world without morals is animal and practically unbearable or its a world where the technologicaly advanced animals have destroyed themselves and their environment and turned everything into (radioactive) desert. I dont know anything about string theory but if it doesnt explains morals and human psychology it explains only a portion of reality leaving the most important aside in which case it may serve as a nice temporary consolation for an atheist but thats likely all.

Oh, here we go. Only people who believe in God can be moral.

Kinda ironic, given how many people in prison identify as holding some sort of religious beliefs vs. those identifying as atheists.

As for string theory, I'm not going to claim to understand it. I've heard Neil Degrasse Tyson talk about it. The phrase "string theory" to me involves a cat, a ball of yarn, and how many times the cat can wrap the ball of yarn around the legs of every chair and table in a room. My first cat was an expert at it.

First, no he isn't. It was written primarily by the scholars of the day. Second, what is wrong with peasants?

J

I was not aware that John, Luke, Mark, and Matthew were all scholars (they're the ones who supposedly wrote the Gospels decades after everything happened, instead of while they were happening, right?). But I still have to ask this: If the Gospels really were written by these specific apostles, why are they contradictory to one another, and why weren't they written during the events they claim to talk about?

Using the term "Abrahamic" God is the same as calling "god" a superman or spaghetti. It is turning God into a human concept. That is a problem introduced into the issue, not a solution.

God and Superman are both human concepts.

How can a being that does not exist, con humans into a realization that God is not necessary? Even if they move the goal post and accuse God of being unethical, they are indeed pointing out that an unethical God does indeed exist.

Where do you get the idea that atheists think God conned humans into thinking God isn't necessary? Humans are more than capable of conning themselves. When I say your God is unethical, that's a shorthand form for saying that the character of "God" in the book called the Bible is unethical. The humans who invented God decided he would have certain traits and do certain deeds. Some of those are extremely unethical by modern standards.

Besides you are not expecting scientific knowledge to stand the test of time in its initial form, do you?

Scientific knowledge changes as new information becomes available. The scientific method, however - the method by which we learn new knowledge - is what I would expect to stand the test of time.

Unless, of course, a newer, better method comes along.

 

[Agent327]

What comes back from the dead? And don't say Lazarus or Jesus. There is no concrete proof that either of them existed, let alone came back from the dead. (...)

First you're going to have to convince me that Jesus existed. There's no contemporaneous evidence that this specific person existed, let alone the supernatural part of the story.

As our house theologian once pointed out, that Jesus lived and died is pretty much the only certain thing we know about him.

Yeah, that's pretty simple, all right. I'm reminded of the summer when I babysat for a family and the middle boy kept asking questions about God. I wasn't going to lie to the kid, nor did I want to lose my job by telling him the truth as science knew it at that time (the family was religious). I told him to ask his mother, and privately hoped he would get more accurate explanations once he got into school.

Science makes no claims about God. That's theology's job.

The Big Bang is neither magic nor creationist myth. It's the best theory we've got so far, and if it's replaced by a better one some day as more accurate information comes in, that's how the scientific method works.

I'm not sure if the scientific method works that way, but it's the way science progresses.

I was not aware that John, Luke, Mark, and Matthew were all scholars (they're the ones who supposedly wrote the Gospels decades after everything happened, instead of while they were happening, right?). But I still have to ask this: If the Gospels really were written by these specific apostles, why are they contradictory to one another, and why weren't they written during the events they claim to talk about?

For one, Jesus was to all practical intents a non-entity during his life. Secondly, none of the apostles or gospel writers was a scholar. Paul was one, to some extent. But more importantly, historical sources are very rarely written at the time the events described happened. Sometimes they are written more or less at the time, but generally they are written some time after. For instance, Alexander the Great had a host of scholars with him on his conquests, but none of their writings survive in original form. So some of those may have originally been written as events took place, but we just don't know.

Where do you get the idea that atheists think God conned humans into thinking God isn't necessary? Humans are more than capable of conning themselves. When I say your God is unethical, that's a shorthand form for saying that the character of "God" in the book called the Bible is unethical. The humans who invented God decided he would have certain traits and do certain deeds. Some of those are extremely unethical by modern standards.

More importantly, they seem internally inconsistent. 'Thou shalt not kill' is one of the commandments; the people featuring in the Bible seem constantly to neglect it, and are rarely - if ever - struck by Divine punishment.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As our house theologian once pointed out, that Jesus lived and died is pretty much the only certain thing we know about him.

I respect Plotinus as a scholar and writer, and appreciate his willingness to serve as an in-forum teacher on a number of topics. But those threads are not on my usual reading list.

Perhaps you could link me to where he offers evidence of Jesus' existence. Keep in mind that while I'm not as concerned with his mere existence (after all, the ideas in the New Testament had to come from someone), I do find the supernatural part of the story completely unconvincing.

Science makes no claims about God. That's theology's job.

I'm talking about a 5-year-old boy asking the sort of questions that would have gotten me fired if I'd told him the scientific explanations for what he was asking and discounted the supernatural explanations. I understand that little kids need things explained in simpler terms than adults do (usually), but I'm not going to stoop to "thunder happens because the angels are bowling in heaven." I figured that it was safest to tell him to ask his mother about it, and hope that when he started school he would have sensible science teachers who could explain such things.

I'm not sure if the scientific method works that way, but it's the way science progresses.

My post was not elegantly worded, but I don't think I said anything incorrect.

For one, Jesus was to all practical intents a non-entity during his life. Secondly, none of the apostles or gospel writers was a scholar. Paul was one, to some extent. But more importantly, historical sources are very rarely written at the time the events described happened. Sometimes they are written more or less at the time, but generally they are written some time after. For instance, Alexander the Great had a host of scholars with him on his conquests, but none of their writings survive in original form. So some of those may have originally been written as events took place, but we just don't know.

For people traveling around on some sort of ministry, it seems odd that not one of them would have kept some sort of journal. Why wait until decades had passed? And why so many contradictions? I fail to see why Paul is used as a counter to my argument, because he was not present during the life of Jesus. He came later.

As for Alexander the Great, he left far more evidence of his existence... and I don't recall any claims of supernatural powers being associated with him.

More importantly, they seem internally inconsistent. 'Thou shalt not kill' is one of the commandments; the people featuring in the Bible seem constantly to neglect it, and are rarely - if ever - struck by Divine punishment.

I think the appropriate word regarding this commandment is "hypocrisy."

 

[Agent327]

I respect Plotinus as a scholar and writer, and appreciate his willingness to serve as an in-forum teacher on a number of topics. But those threads are not on my usual reading list.

Perhaps you could link me to where he offers evidence of Jesus' existence. Keep in mind that while I'm not as concerned with his mere existence (after all, the ideas in the New Testament had to come from someone), I do find the supernatural part of the story completely unconvincing.

He said that in a discussion of the historicity of Jesus (if I remember correctly). What he meant, I think, is that is what most scholars agree on. (And even there there are some who argue against it.) Pretty much anything beyond 'Jesus lived and died' is controversial in one point or another - or more. So you can check for the topic 'historicity of Jesus' in Plotinus's thread (or wiki for a short introduction).

I'm talking about a 5-year-old boy asking the sort of questions that would have gotten me fired if I'd told him the scientific explanations for what he was asking and discounted the supernatural explanations. I understand that little kids need things explained in simpler terms than adults do (usually), but I'm not going to stoop to "thunder happens because the angels are bowling in heaven." I figured that it was safest to tell him to ask his mother about it, and hope that when he started school he would have sensible science teachers who could explain such things.

I understand the predicament perfectly. It might take more imagination than an anxious baby sitter can muster.

My post was not elegantly worded, but I don't think I said anything incorrect.

I have a tendency to state the obvious.

For people traveling around on some sort of ministry, it seems odd that not one of them would have kept some sort of journal. Why wait until decades had passed? And why so many contradictions? I fail to see why Paul is used as a counter to my argument, because he was not present during the life of Jesus. He came later.

The journal is entirely a modern invention. In those days writing would be on papyrus, parchment, animal skin, palm leaves (India, for centuries). In short, writing was quite laborious and done by professionals or the educated. Also, 'ministry' is not a term any contemporary Jewish-Christian would recognize. (Prophet, yes.) But more to the point, the fact that the various gospels have contradictions is actually an argument in favour of Jesus' historicity. (Just like traffic accident witnesses will give conflicting versions of the accident.) Oddly, scholars assume that all extant gospels rely on a lost, earlier source named Q. But apart from literal sources there is bound to have been an oral history. With the scarcity of writing most sources would originally be oral, especially with a wandering preacher such as Jesus might have been. The problem arises, of course, from the fact, that no source intended to give what we think of today as 'historically accurate information'. They were tales intended to proselitize. We can even see this in Paul's letters (who indeed gives very little information on Jesus, but all the more on early Christians and Christianity). Peculiarly, even though Paul's letters are the oldest written records, they give the least information on Jesus himself, making the gospels - written later - actually better sources. And even then none of the sources are very informative on Jesus's youth. But to historical science even an unreliable source is yet a source. The trouble starts with determining which part is reliable and which is embellishment. And since in this case we are discussing what is considered to be the founder of a new religion, controversy will, I suspect, always remain at the heart of it. Coming back to the journal, the closest ancient equivalent of that is the letter. Some ancient letters are quite revealing about their authors' personal lives. (And I'm not just referring to the likes of well known figures like Paul and Cicero alone.)

As for Alexander the Great, he left far more evidence of his existence... and I don't recall any claims of supernatural powers being associated with him.

He claimed descendancy from Zeus. In Persia he is still equated with the Devil in folklore. Now no one will claim folklore as evidence (I hope), but the point is no primary sources survive in his case either.

I think the appropriate word regarding this commandment is "hypocrisy."

I fear it's typical of religion that they have internal contradictions. Hypocrisy is simply a human trait, which goes to prove that religion is human, I guess.

 

[FredLC]

I respect Plotinus as a scholar and writer, and appreciate his willingness to serve as an in-forum teacher on a number of topics. But those threads are not on my usual reading list.

Perhaps you could link me to where he offers evidence of Jesus' existence. Keep in mind that while I'm not as concerned with his mere existence (after all, the ideas in the New Testament had to come from someone), I do find the supernatural part of the story completely unconvincing.

I have heard a few times that Plotinus is a great debater on this forum. He came after my time here, though, so I know little of his stuff; didn't even know he had a knack for theology. I'd like to read some-o his stuff if one can point it out.

As for the actual topic here, surprisingly, the one who convinced me that Jesus probably existed was... Christopher Hitchens.

His argument goes that there were some predictions on the Old Testament signaling the birth of the messiah, and should the accepted messiah be simply invented, it would have been quite easy to make them match perfectly. But than comes a messiah that was not born in the right city; and so you are forced to bend the historical record and create a nonsensical census without any historical support just to justify that he was born during a travel.

This looks like retcon, and would only be necessary if there actually were some carismathic preacher that was the center figure of a cult that proclaimed to have found the messiah.

Makes sense. Does not do a whole lot sustain any claims of supernatural origin, quite the contrary, but does indicate that the oral tradition was trying to square facts that did not vibe too well with an established mythos...

Regards .

 

[onejayhawk]

I was not aware that John, Luke, Mark, and Matthew were all scholars (they're the ones who supposedly wrote the Gospels decades after everything happened, instead of while they were happening, right?). But I still have to ask this: If the Gospels really were written by these specific apostles, why are they contradictory to one another, and why weren't they written during the events they claim to talk about?

Paul and Luke were scholars. That's over half. Matthew and John were tradesmen, the upper middle class of the day. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but clearly a scholar. The interesting one is Peter. There are two letters from Peter, one in excellent Greek and one in rough trade Greek, yet the two hang together well. It was common practice of the time to have letters rewritten into good Greek. Perhaps he was not able to do it the second time.

The statement was actually intended for the Old Testement, particularly the books of Moses and the Histories. In addition, about half the prohecies were written by scholars and all the long ones.

God and Superman are both human concepts.

That does not follow. Superman is a human concept. God is perceived, so not a conception.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Paul and Luke were scholars. That's over half. Matthew and John were tradesmen, the upper middle class of the day. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but clearly a scholar. The interesting one is Peter. There are two letters from Peter, one in excellent Greek and one in rough trade Greek, yet the two hang together well. It was common practice of the time to have letters rewritten into good Greek. Perhaps he was not able to do it the second time.

Paul wasn't one of the original apostles. He came later, and basically took over deciding what was to be preached.

And since when does 2 out of 13 equal half?

The statement was actually intended for the Old Testement, particularly the books of Moses and the Histories. In addition, about half the prohecies were written by scholars and all the long ones.

And yet there are people who swear up, down, and sideways that God himself wrote the Bible. Every single word.

That does not follow. Superman is a human concept. God is perceived, so not a conception.

J

Both are fictitious characters, invented by imaginative humans, and endowed with superhuman abilities. Both have made some humans a lot of money, so it appears they were successful. The difference is that nobody has turned up on my doorstep to tell me I'm going to hell for not believing in Superman, and Superman has never seriously been used as a substitute for scientific knowledge and the scientific method. Nobody has ever been executed for not believing in Superman or for not being a fan of Superman in the "correct" way.

 

[onejayhawk]

Paul wasn't one of the original apostles. He came later, and basically took over deciding what was to be preached. And since when does 2 out of 13 equal half?

By word count, by book count, choose your method. Paul, by himself, wrote almost half the NT.

And yet there are people who swear up, down, and sideways that God himself wrote the Bible. Every single word.

No, they don't. Look more closely. Even the most fundamental do not claim direct writing. The relevant passage uses the term "breathed".

Both are fictitious characters, invented by imaginative humans, and endowed with superhuman abilities. Both have made some humans a lot of money, so it appears they were successful. The difference is that nobody has turned up on my doorstep to tell me I'm going to hell for not believing in Superman, and Superman has never seriously been used as a substitute for scientific knowledge and the scientific method. Nobody has ever been executed for not believing in Superman or for not being a fan of Superman in the "correct" way.

This is the assumption that is being challenged.

J

 

[Ryika]

This is the assumption that is being challenged.

Saying that Superman is fictitious is blasphemous indeed.

 

[onejayhawk]

Saying that Superman is fictitious is blasphemous indeed.

Truly so. I met his cousin Kara at a comic-con, or so she said. Personally, I think it was Cosplay.

Yet, it is the other one that is truly in question. No one has seen him, but there is something...

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

By word count, by book count, choose your method. Paul, by himself, wrote almost half the NT.

So somebody who wasn't even there decided to be the authority on what happened...

No, they don't. Look more closely. Even the most fundamental do not claim direct writing. The relevant passage uses the term "breathed".

Kindly don't contradict me when I say what people have told me personally, either on my doorstep or in online posts. That is tantamount to calling me a liar.

 

[Agent327]

Paul and Luke were scholars. That's over half. Matthew and John were tradesmen, the upper middle class of the day. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but clearly a scholar. The interesting one is Peter. There are two letters from Peter, one in excellent Greek and one in rough trade Greek, yet the two hang together well. It was common practice of the time to have letters rewritten into good Greek. Perhaps he was not able to do it the second time.

The statement was actually intended for the Old Testement, particularly the books of Moses and the Histories. In addition, about half the prohecies were written by scholars and all the long ones.

That does not follow. Superman is a human concept. God is perceived, so not a conception.

Let's start with the latter. Basically, any word is a human concept. Since God is a word, it's a human concept. We can easily check this by observing animals. No God worship there. Ergo, it's a human concept.

There seems to be a misunderstanding with the word scholar here. Usually a learned person is meant by this (using the simplest definition). The Books of Moses were written by various persons. Other than that little is known about these authors besides a familiarity with Judaic theological concepts. I'm not sure how anyone would conclude from that 'they were scholars'. Secondly, being able to write does not make you a scholar. It makes you a writer.

'Matthew and John were tradesman, the upper middle class of the day'. One has to remind you here of the fact that Crassus (the epitomy of the thradesman) was only respected because of his immense wealth, certainly not because of making his money by trade. Certainly tradesman were not 'the upper middle class of the day', as you claim. More like something just above peasants. Lastly, if there even was a middle class in ancient times, it was very, very small.

By word count, by book count, choose your method. Paul, by himself, wrote almost half the NT.

Even if that were correct, the NT is only a small portion of the Bible, which consists mostly of the OT. But actually, Paul's attributed letters consist only a minor part of the NT, and deal mostly not with Jesus.

 

[Berzerker]

life is evidence of God's existence...life begets life

the prime mover infused creation with it

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Life is evidence of chemistry and biology. It isn't evidence of anything supernatural.

 

[Berzerker]

did the inanimate give rise to the animate?

did the rules make it inevitable?

maybe life preceded the universe...course that still doesn't explain where life came from

 

[Perfection]

life is evidence of God's existence...life begets life

the prime mover infused creation with it

wouldn't then the prime mover be unbegotten life?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

did the inanimate give rise to the animate?

did the rules make it inevitable?

maybe life preceded the universe...course that still doesn't explain where life came from

Let's not get into this silly nonsense again. You can't have life before there was someplace for it to exist, or anything that it could be composed of.

 

[Perfection]

did the inanimate give rise to the animate?

Are the waves of the ocean inanimate?

did the rules make it inevitable?

Why does one need to answer that question? A man may win the powerball even if his win was not inevitable.

maybe life preceded the universe...course that still doesn't explain where life came from

Whereas we have a perfectly scientific explanation through abiogenesis. Maybe let's go with that.

 

[onejayhawk]

So somebody who wasn't even there decided to be the authority on what happened...

It's what scholars do. I am not sure what your point is.

Kindly don't contradict me when I say what people have told me personally, either on my doorstep or in online posts. That is tantamount to calling me a liar.

I can grant that things have been misquoted to you, particularly in an easy to remember short form. I stand by the statement.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Let's start with the latter. Basically, any word is a human concept. Since God is a word, it's a human concept. We can easily check this by observing animals. No God worship there. Ergo, it's a human concept.

There seems to be a misunderstanding with the word scholar here. Usually a learned person is meant by this (using the simplest definition). The Books of Moses were written by various persons. Other than that little is known about these authors besides a familiarity with Judaic theological concepts. I'm not sure how anyone would conclude from that 'they were scholars'. Secondly, being able to write does not make you a scholar. It makes you a writer.

'Matthew and John were tradesman, the upper middle class of the day'. One has to remind you here of the fact that Crassus (the epitomy of the thradesman) was only respected because of his immense wealth, certainly not because of making his money by trade. Certainly tradesman were not 'the upper middle class of the day', as you claim. More like something just above peasants. Lastly, if there even was a middle class in ancient times, it was very, very small.

Even if that were correct, the NT is only a small portion of the Bible, which consists mostly of the OT. But actually, Paul's attributed letters consist only a minor part of the NT, and deal mostly not with Jesus.

I would say sophistry and nonsense, but nonsense is fun. Were you not the person stating that there were no scholars before the invention of writing? Hence, writing was never invented because there was no scholar to do it.

J