Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[kashkow]

(now if God does not exists, then you have to conclude that Jesus was wrong to talk about God or at the very least delusional).

Yes - that is my conclusion.

And what part of your 'proof' cannot be applied to the existence of the Zoroastrian god and it's "prophet" Zarathustra?

And what proof do you have to support your conclusion?? If you conclude that Jesus was wrong or delusional, then you are basically saying that God does not exist, but what support do you have for this claim?

So far it seems like you have been trying to tear down all of Dan's proofs and have been concerned very much about his proofs, whereas you don't seem to provide any evidence of your own proof, ie. why you don't believe God exists?

Not trying to attack you here but genuinely want to hear why you believe what you do.

 

[dan964]

500 claimed witnesses.

"most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep" - the point I am trying to make that, if this was 2000 years old. You could have asked the people, if they had saw.

You do know that there are no original manuscripts of the bible in existence don't you.

Well a slight correction, I presume you mean the texts that make up the Bible, there are 27 texts of them in what is called the New Testament, which is one volume in the bible.
Yes I am well aware that the original manuscript of each of the individual texts have not been found; the same can be said of many works of antiquity, yet we still consider them reliable.
And I'm kind of glad they are not, because people would probably have very crazy about them (if you know what I mean, the strange people who would probably kiss/bow down before pieces of papyrus and that frankly is strange).

The earliest surviving copy of the text describing the "resurrection" exists in a museum in Egypt. It clearly shows that the story of Jesus' ascension to heaven was added later, with the 'original' text crossed out and the edits written above. The original text in this unoriginal manuscript simply states that his body was not to be found in the tomb.

And which manuscript would that be? From what text, Mark, John?
I suspect you are referring to mark 16, which is hotly contested. Mark 16:1-8, is considered genuine, while Mark 16:9 onwards (there are variant endings)...

The earliest copies we have still date within the following century, after the date which it was written. Namely the oldest fragments of Luke, John and Matthew, date to 175AD (that is about 140 years after Christ death)...
Most complete manuscripts date from 350AD

Mark 16:9 onwards is not considered to be found in the most earliest manuscripts, but there is evidence in Luke and Matthew for the ascension etc. A good modern version will make this note.

Who knows what other edits occurred between the original and the earliest surviving texts. And more importantly, in terms of the 'mystical' elements of the bible, apparently we are to believe that the bible authenticates itself.

1. The Bible itself isn't a single text, if it was then I think there would a lot more issues; it is more of a library of texts, called "canon" or "Scriptures" (sometimes there isn't much difference between the two, apparently for Catholics there is)
2. I would have to see what text you are referring to, in your discussion, if you are referring to Mark 16, then that is a different topic, because that is known to Christians (we are not ignorant of the various endings not likely to be Mark's authorship)
3. Just because there are "supernatural elements", doesn't mean that we either blindly believe without actually looking into it; or underhandedly dismiss it.
4. Speculation that edits happened, because of a lack of evidence is just that - speculation. The materials we have, and the confidence in such materials suggest that the original texts indeed have been preserved properly. As far as we know, in fact since the 1600s, when closer and closer manuscripts have been discovered, theologically and generally speaking the content and message of Christianity hasn't been affected by the discovery of new manuscripts.

 

[dan964]

And what proof do you have to support your conclusion?? If you conclude that Jesus was wrong or delusional, then you are basically saying that God does not exist, but what support do you have for this claim?

So far it seems like you have been trying to tear down all of Dan's proofs and have been concerned very much about his proofs, whereas you don't seem to provide any evidence of your own proof, ie. why you don't believe God exists?

Not trying to attack you here but genuinely want to hear why you believe what you do.

Just a warning, Jesus is wrong/delusional does not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist; because some other religion could be right.
It basically means that you have eliminated what I think in my opinion, has the largest backing.

 

[kashkow]

Just a warning, Jesus is wrong/delusional does not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist; because some other religion could be right.
It basically means that you have eliminated what I think in my opinion, has the largest backing.

True indeed, but my reply was mainly aimed towards braintic (or other atheists) who doesn't believe in God altogether, so his/her conclusion on Jesus basically implied that he/she doesn't believe in God's existence.

ie. they concluded Jesus was delusional; this meant that a) they don't believe God exists, or b) they believe another theist religion is right. (Of course there are other options but for the sake of simplicity I won't go there. These are the main options)

So if they are atheists, then they obviously fall under category a... And from context, braintic is an atheist and his/her conclusion followed from your previous condition "if God does not exist" not "If another religion is true"... So I addressed this to braintic (or other athiests mainly) because I thought he/she was athiest... unless I'm mistaken and braintic is a part of another religion/theist??

btw, thanks for your reply though, still a good point.

 

[braintic]

And what proof do you have to support your conclusion?? If you conclude that Jesus was wrong or delusional, then you are basically saying that God does not exist, but what support do you have for this claim?

So far it seems like you have been trying to tear down all of Dan's proofs and have been concerned very much about his proofs, whereas you don't seem to provide any evidence of your own proof, ie. why you don't believe God exists?

Not trying to attack you here but genuinely want to hear why you believe what you do.

There is no physical evidence for a god, and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
Until there is evidence of existence, I do not feel the need to justify its non-existence any more than you should feel the need to justify the non-existence of the FSM, Ahura Mazda or leprechauns.
Especially when:
(I) supernatural explanations provide no better logical explanation for the nature of the universe than science
(II) the existence or non-existence of a god makes no difference to my life, unless you believe in the absolutely grotesque version of a god that demands subservience - seriously, what a dick such a god would be

 

[dan964]

There is no physical evidence for a god, and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
Until there is evidence of existence, I do not feel the need to justify its non-existence any more than you should feel the need to justify the non-existence of the FSM, Ahura Mazda or leprechauns.

Leprechauns are a different category being contigenent beings (same category as Russell's teapot)
and I know you love bringing up Zoroastrianism. The evidence that the FSM was deiiberately made in response to "Intelligent Design" arguments is very well-known.

I will also note that belief in the supernatural does not make one delusional.
Also there are arguments on the first page that address God's existence.

- such as the first cause argument etc.

Especially when:
(I) supernatural explanations provide no better logical explanation for the nature of the universe than science

I don't think science explains why the universe exists Not only does it not explain the purpose (why do science?). nor does it actually provide reason whether there is a useful purpose or not; and yet in this forum, people act like it matters.

Yes it explains how it works, but fails in explaining some things, which are important to the universe. Let me ask you a question, if naturalism is all that there is, then explain your thought process. How comes things like a range of differences in language.

Secondly, science doesn't explain the existence of morality, good vs. evil (it isn't supposed to either).
Thirdly, saying God did it, does not automatically mean that we cannot look at science to understand the mechanics of the world. But yet even science, presumes there is somewhat order in creation; something that cannot exist necessarily if God does not exist.
(The converse may not be true)

Thirdly, an argument for ignorance, well I don't know of any good arguments for God's existence therefore God does not exist. Or he doesn't exist, because if he does, it either does not matter (in which case why are you making such a big deal about if he does); or God is some "tyrant" in your mind.

Of course what I presented was my logic flow, and obviously I glazed over the objections that are raised up at each point. The case is there, and scholarship has come to the conclusion that the New Testament is well-preserved. Christians have come to the conclusion from reading the Gospels, that Jesus is telling the truth. It is matter of confidence. How confident one is in the evidence? For you I highly suspect that the lenses of history or literature, which are applied to the Gospel accounts.

Some examine each of the accounts (which are separate works thought to mention), as they would in any case of law, and have different conclusions about Jesus.

(II) the existence or non-existence of a god makes no difference to my life, unless you believe in the absolutely grotesque version of a god that demands subservience - seriously, what a dick such a god would be

[/quote]
Yes, it would make a difference, let me ask you question, do you submit to the government of Australia, and obey its laws? When you were young, did you not obey your parents? Claiming that the requirement we should obey God; makes him what you have just described, is no better than claiming the previous two are, since if God did create the world, then he is the ruler of the world, and just as we would obey the government or our parents, then likewise for God. I am sorry but you cannot claim it as grotesque or that God is being mean (or using the language you did), simply because we are supposed to obey him; as you wouldn't do the same for earthly leaders; unless you think that God is responsible for the brokenness of this world (which I would disagree on).

in remark to your comment, I ask why? What makes it grotesque or God, what you described him as? Because I think whatever you answer to that seems to be your underlying framework.

Here is a question, what is wrong with the world for instance? And what kind of ruler do you think should fix up this mess? Christians have answers to both as does any group of people, that does not leave God as as you describe.

Also, I suspect this is one of your real reasons why would not believe in God, despite whether he exists or not
(the word believe actually is equivalent to faith).

=====
Maybe there isn't physical evidence in terms of matter, which is understandable, but what about the mind*, what about knowledge and truth? Why is for those who don't believe in God tend towards an inconsistent relativism; but when questioned on it, claim absolutes, that their worldview does not allow for?

*I have seen an argument that looks at studies on the mind, and ends up at two conclusions, maybe I'll post it if I find it again.
====

Honestly your comment reveals something I was already aware of; even if there was a way to proof God in a way that would leave you conclude the same, and even if you should submit under his rule; you won't. Maybe it just hints at something that is driving you to those conclusions more passionately, then one would expect.

====
So there are about 9 explanations of the resurrection. We will ignore those who just don't examine it either, who dismiss inquiry on the subject, either concluding for/against it. 6 of the remaining explanations, don't seem to quite fit and explain all the accounts. Leaving the remaining explanation, which is the one that I hold to.

 

[porcupinetree]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You didn't really address much of what he is saying. Case in point, there exists zero evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. There is no need to mention the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus, the cross-examination of biblical literature and the plethora of other things you threw in there when you haven't demonstrated the existence of God. Expatiating about the preservation of the testament (reminder: preservation != truth) assumes the existence of a god in the first place.



Enough said.



Let me guess, you also think homeopathy is real, astrology is a science and the world was made in 7 days? Don't lower yourself to such denigrating evidence standards



Taken straight from the OED:



From a purely linguistic point, where supernatural refers to matters that transcend physicality -- and therefore proof -- belief in the supernatural (i.e. a god) is the absolute definition of delusion.

Do not reply with:

1. The preservation of the New Testament
2. What the Bible or Gospel claim
3. The resurrection of Jesus
4. What Christians "think"
5. From III, any mention of Jesus
6. Psychology of "confidence" in the "evidence" (because you shouldn't need to be confident in, or believe, evidence. It should be true irrespective of perspective)
7. Bible passages or quotes
8. Why you/x/y/z feel God is real
9. Unsubstantiable, unsupported hypothesises

Instead, start from first principles. Demonstrate to me the existence of God. Show me peer-reviewed, irrefutable, valid and extraordinary proof. Then, once you have done that, demonstrate that the God you so believe in is that of the Abrahamic religion, specifically Christianity. In other words, demonstrate to me how, in a cause and effect world, there exists anything supernatural.

On a minor note, "believe" and "faith" are absolutely not equivalent. One can not have faith if there is evidence, for evidence precludes faith. However, to "believe" in something merely has connotations of a lack of evidence, but does not necessitate such a condition i.e. is conditional. I don't think that matters much here though. This is just me being pedantic.

Why are you so obsessed with this notion of 'proof', as if something should only be believed if we can prove it using the scientific method? (Surely you don't actually believe this, yes?)

 

[porcupinetree]

And on a side note, there is substantial reason based on physical science as to why one would believe in the existence of a God.

 

[porcupinetree]

As mentioned before, simply: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There is a threshold that a rational person would maintain when accepting reality. If I am buying something at the cornershop and I ask the cashier "Is there a surcharge using American Express here?" and the cashier replies no, I am not going to request official and / or legally binding documents outlining that American Express does not get surcharged in this store. In addition, the consequences would not be far-reaching.



That is the whole purpose of this thread...which no one has yet been able to demonstrate.

You sure about that? (Why?) I would disagree.

 

[porcupinetree]

My justification for extraordinary claims require extraorindary proof is centered around the impacts such extraordinary claims would have on the individual and society (negative and positive). Why do you disagree?

That's a little odd (if I'm allowed to say so). You're essentially saying that the amount of evidence required to support a claim with low probability should actually depend upon the impact of a claim on a society/individual? So, essentially, the amount of evidence required is completely relative to who's hearing it?

I disagree because it is simply not true (in my opinion of course, but this isn't really an 'opinion' matter, it's simply a true/false question). The evidence required to validate a belief in an event of low probability is not simply a function of the probability of the event's occurrence. What also must be taken into account is the probability of a certain/specific piece of evidence existing, had the event not actually occurred. For example, suppose 10000 different people (who do not know each other) complain to their bank that all their money from their account has vanished (i.e. has been stolen by someone, presumably). Now, the probability of 10000 people all having their money stolen from the bank is extremely low due to the bank's security measures. However, what is the probability that all of these 10000 people would have made this claim, if their money had not at all been stolen? It is extremely low. In this case we see that we don't need an extraordinary amount of evidence to form a belief that the money had indeed been stolen, because the evidence that was presented to us (i.e. 10000 people complaining) most likely would not exist had the event not happened. This essentially counteracts the argument that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Now, I just came up with that example about 10 minutes ago, and it's not entirely perfect, so here's another one that may make the point clearer: suppose you are watching the news on TV, and the lotto draw comes on. You recently bought a lotto draw/ticket, which (say) consisted of the numbers 1, 14, 29 and 3. Suppose that the TV presenter draws your exact numbers out. Now, keep in mind that winning the lotto is an extraordinary event, that is, its probability is low. But what is the probability that what you have just seen on TV is false/faked/incorrect? You can always make the argument "someone hacked into my TV system and edited the program to make it look like that", or "the TV editors on channel 9/7/whatever edited it just to trick me", or whatever other argument you may come up with. But at the end of the day, the probability that what you have seen on TV is false somehow is extremely low. Hence it's reasonable to believe that you won the lottery.

 

[porcupinetree]

^ also that's my last post for a while on this thread so laters

 

[dan964]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You didn't really address much of what he is saying. Case in point, there exists zero evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. There is no need to mention the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus, the cross-examination of biblical literature and the plethora of other things you threw in there when you haven't demonstrated the existence of God. Expatiating about the preservation of the testament (reminder: preservation != truth) assumes the existence of a god in the first place.

Neither did you.

What kind of proof? You are being incredibly fussy, by the sounds of it? And no I did not assume that God exists, I was more so explaining the charge of logic, that Christians are deillusional, rather than providing a proof for God. You also require a certain standard which I will address later.

Secondary, it was more of a sketch. Preservation of the New Testament does not assume the existence of God at all. It is documented, that what we call the Bible today, is considered by historical scholars to be reliable in terms of what was written 2000 years ago. The question we have to ask, is the stuff written there true.

Accuracy is the next thing, to examine. The only thing that remains is it valid?

It seems to me, that you think that because a text like the New Testament makes supernatural claims, it therefore assumes God existence to be truth. You yourself disprove this notion, by claiming that preservation does not equal truth, which I agree with.

Prove that claim in bold, please. I don't think it is justified either.

Enough said

What kind of proof are you expecting? What kind of argument would convince you that God existed?
I address this a bit later. It wasn't clear in what I was meaning, to be honest.

Let me guess, you also think homeopathy is real, astrology is a science and the world was made in 7 days? Don't lower yourself to such denigrating evidence standards

No of course not. this statement does not follow, the nature of the arguments, of course involve the material world, but are not limited to it.
Well, you seem to throw out anything that does not fit what you deem scientific evidence. You do realise that this method, presumes there is an ordering to the world; something that if you take the logical conclusions, of God's supposed non-existence;

Secondly, you seem to also hold to some absolute standard as well, based on what you can observe. Let me ask a question, can you be absolutely wrong about something? For instance, people thought in the idea of a steady state (I think just because they didn't like the idea of a universe beginning); but then evidence came out that the universe had a beginning; but now people again are trying to think of theories such as the multiverse and oscillating universe etc.


Taken straight from the OED:

From a purely linguistic point, where supernatural refers to matters that transcend physicality -- and therefore proof -- belief in the supernatural (i.e. a god) is the absolute definition of delusion.

Ah, no. another unsubstantiated claim, Again.

Please you have as much burden of proof to say that, as I have to say that God exists. The only one who doesn't have burden of proof is the one who isn't making any claims.

You used the definition by
"despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument"
Present your case. So far the case has been, well I haven't found a convincing empirical argument so therefore God does not exist.
But to make your conclusion, you systemically ruled out anything that could be considered evidence, simply because of its meta-physical elements as noted below (not all below)

you cannot for instance make the assumption, well it mentions God therefore it cannot be used. You are subtly, ever so slightly, assuming the conclusion before you get there. you cannot use "Why you/x/y/z feel God is not real" either

Do not reply with:

1. The preservation of the New Testament
2. What the Bible or Gospel claim
3. The resurrection of Jesus
4. What Christians "think"
5. From III, any mention of Jesus
6. Psychology of "confidence" in the "evidence" (because you shouldn't need to be confident in, or believe, evidence. It should be true irrespective of perspective)
7. Bible passages or quotes
8. Why you/x/y/z feel God is real
9. Unsubstantiable, unsupported hypothesises

Instead, start from first principles. Demonstrate to me the existence of God. Show me peer-reviewed, irrefutable, valid and extraordinary proof. Then, once you have done that, demonstrate that the God you so believe in is that of the Abrahamic religion, specifically Christianity. In other words, demonstrate to me how, in a cause and effect world, there exists anything supernatural.

Umm... I am sorry but you cannot claim that I cannot refer to Jesus; firstly I am a Christian, and that will never happen, and secondly the main point I was making; was this...


1. Well since you used the world "cause and effect" world, ask yourself, what caused the effect of the universes existence? That is a starting point.

2. Explain the existence of absolutes, if there is no God as you say.

3. Is probability even well-defined if God does not exist? If so, can we even do science or prove anything at all? In which case, why are you asking for a proof?

4. How do you know what you know?



So you don't consider anything beyond science as evidence, then I am not surprised. But isn't that kind of assuming God doesn't exist either??? I am more so curious than upset.

let me address why some (not all) are actually okay to use
[*]The preservation of the New Testament
If the New Testament is accurately preserved; then at the very least we have some information about the things from
2000 years ago. It gives us some insight. Now yes preservation does not equal truth. But it is an important sidenote as most things are. This point is important, because we cannot raise the objection, well its some conspiracy from 300AD or so.

The reason I use this, is scholarship agrees on this. Most scholarship agrees as a result, on the crucifixion of Jesus. And the claims of Jesus' resurrection are not just a later addition. it is highly relevant to this discussion. Most of the objections to the next two, are related to this, so any discussion of the later, requires this.

Also please remember that I was addressing some of the objections that most people have to God's existence, and yes I am focusing on the narrow case of Christianity.


[*]What the Bible or Gospel claim
The Bible is a library of texts. The Gospel claims needed to be weighed as much as any other claim. Since they are a claim to God's existence, then they are highly relevant to this discussion. If the Gospel is true, then God exists. So if one was able to prove the former, without assuming God's existence and more importantly without assuming that because it contains elements of the supernatural, it must be wrong or somehow assuming the premise (which it isn't). The presence of supernatural elements in a text, neither renders a text true or false, and must be examined in its own light

[*]The resurrection of Jesus
Umm... it is a supernatural event. Again if one was able to show that this actually happened, then at the very least, there is the conclusion, that the existence of the meta-physical. Again one must not assume as is often, that it is often dismissed because
is of that nature. Again a legal examination of witnesses etc. etc.


[*]What Christians "think"
Hey I am a Christian, of course you need to know what Christians think. If what I think is irrelevant, then again why is what you think, again you raise it later, any relevant either; and yet you use it all the time?


[*]From III, any mention of Jesus
If Jesus claimed divine, or at the very least to be a "mouthpiece from God", then it is relevant. If the resurrection happened, see above. It is highly relevant.

[*]Psychology of "confidence" in the "evidence" (because you shouldn't need to be confident in, or believe, evidence. It should be true irrespective of perspective)

Well this is ironic, you claim to have zero confidence, in any of these as evidences. I do agree with the stuff in brackets, but I don't think that the removes the need for discussion on this, since you yourself raise this later, when talking about the impacts on society etc. etc.

Secondly, even in science, there is a degree of confidence that is needing in the empirical methods themselves, we just use different terms, like reliability, accuracy and validity. The same extension applies


[*]Bible passages or quotes
Umm, same reason as #2 above.

[*]Why you/x/y/z feel God is real
Yes I agree this is the one thing that should not apply. I will address it maybe a bit later, maybe not. yet I suspect this is not consistently applied on the other side of argument as well

[*]Unsubstantiable, unsupported hypothesises
such as?

On a minor note, "believe" and "faith" are absolutely not equivalent. One can not have faith if there is evidence, for evidence precludes faith. However, to "believe" in something merely has connotations of a lack of evidence, but does not necessitate such a condition i.e. is conditional. I don't think that matters much here though. This is just me being pedantic.

[/quote]
Let me also be a bit pedantic. Aah no. A lot of claims are made, with again very little backing.
Maybe in a modern context they would. Faith and believe have the same word in Greek pistis. The word believe is used because in English, we don't have a verb form for the word faith. Secondly, the definition of faith you are assuming, mirrors superstitution; that is not in view here.
Faith in spite of evidence, hence my discussion on confidence. Confidence (con fide - from the latin with faith) is in evidence. and atheists claim confidence in the evidence and assertions that God does not exist.

So I actually dispute your definition, because it is not the one I've been using. Faith precludes evidence, basically you are saying that faith removes evidence, another claim... (in case you don't know, I obviously disagree with that)

My justification for extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is centred around the impacts such extraordinary claims would have on the individual and society (negative and positive). Why do you disagree?

Because you are asking for an empirical, what appears to be a scientific proof; it is hardly relevant what you/ or a society more generally feels in relation to it. You thought to brought me up on up. So I will also. Secondly, I highly suspect that even if God existed, what impact would it be? Most people act indifferently, especially theistic agnostics/deists.

Again define your measures, define "extraordinary". If you mean empirical, then I can understand a little bit. But you seem to be limited, empirical evidence to scientifically derived (which not everything is)... if that is not a serious limitation in what tools can be used, then what is? (rhetorical)

Sort of. There is bit of a misunderstanding/overlook: a low probability does not imply a great impact.
For example, something with a low probability may have a correspondingly low impact. If my friend brags to me that he rolled a 6 on a dice 2000 times in a row, I'd obviously think he's lying. I would leave it at that and move on, because the impact of that highly improbable event is negligible.

You'd think he be lying. Also note that you say "I'd think he'd be lying". But unless you were observing him, you are only making the assumption that because an event is unlikely, it is most likely false. I get that you would claim things of low probability require extraordinary proof, but you didn't make that claim; you only made the claim based on somewhat subjective outworkings of a particular 'belief' (using the word loosely here, since there is not agreement on this term)

In this case, an improbable event has a negligible impact. However, if someone claims the existence of a supernatural creator that asserts extraordinarily supernatural power AND demands (amongst other things) devotion, love, sacrifice, rituals and questionable moral codes of conduct...then I am compelled to make the case: where is your extraordinary proof? In such a case, it is rational to inquire for such evidence which should be held to a fittingly high standard because such a claim would be emotionally taxing to the individual, be a bottleneck towards society and be the epitome of stockholm syndrome.

You might need to define some of your fancy language. The degree of language does not make a claim true/convincing.
Again, more claims.

There are a lot of assumptions/claims:
1. Belief in God or if God exists, then it is backward for society.
2. I am suprised that you would be concerned with the emotional/feeling effects. Can you explain what such effects would be?

AND demands

God doesn't need to demand, he deserves it, if he is the creator of the world. Logically.

This is the essence of the framework in which I operate.

And yes there are a lot of things you need to address, a lot of claims about God not existing were made.
Just some summary things:

1. You cannot systematically dismiss anything of a low probability, without proper backing either. There exist many things with low probability that are perfectly fine. Even atheists agree on this one: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Improbable_things_happen
Which I conclude, that is ok, therefore for meta-physical events of low-probability to happen. So there a seemingly inconsistency in the way probability is used by those who oppose God's existence.

2. You cannot make a claim that something is wrong/delusional, without yourself providing an argument. Arguing from ignorance, for either a theist/atheist is problematic. Arguing based on the existence of objections. Most of the objections fall short of disproving God's existence and most challenges are with the way Christians argue, or the tools they use, such as their classification/means of evidence. You are attempting a reducto-absurdo argument (reduce to crazy argument), but have very little backing for the conclusion that somehow a belief in the meta-physical is absurd...

Just a heads up, your framework most likely will have this critical assumption: the universe is all that there is/exists, so therefore God does not exist. Such an argument is circular.

Yes I don't think I have extraordinarily proved anything; but neither has anyone at this.
There are arguments that already exist, most of the effort is to address the ad-hoc objections thrown each way

=====
Here is an argument that may or may not be useful, if you do want to talk about that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw
Is mind reducible to matter?


But as for me, Jesus is the big deal; if he is who he says he is. The question is how do we know?

 

[dan964]

Appendix:
When it comes to truth, typically from a secular perspective, something is established as true:

- Coherence (clarity of the argument)
- Correspondence (alignment with other known information, especially most, not all, scientific evidence is allowed here)
- Pragmatic (that is the heart of your discussion, to do with applications)
- Individual (true for you, true for me - leads to relativism, which is internally contradictory, as it makes an absolute claim that all truth is relative)

of these 4, the 4th one is irrelevant, apart from opinions/convictions, which we all have. The pragmaticness, has to do with its usefulness, and ability to predict things with it. It is slightly relevant.

The other two are key.

Also my last reply jumps a bit, !! but I cannot edit it really.

 

[Orwell]

Why did Jesus show up when he did? And why did he show up where he did?

 

[dan964]

Why did Jesus show up when he did? And why did he show up where he did?

Where - prophecy, he was a Jew because the Christ/salvation comes from the Jews. (we sing about it in Christmas, unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given - Isaiah 9:6)
When - some say prophecy in book of Daniel pinpoints his entrance in Jerusalem when it happened.

“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks."

 

[Orwell]

Yeah, I understand but why? Why didn't Jesus show up in 2016 or 2150?

 

[dan964]

Yeah, I understand but why? Why didn't Jesus show up in 2016 or 2150?

to be honest I don't know specifically, apart from what I already said.
The influence of Christianity and Jesus, if it hadn't occured when it did, we would be seeing a very different society to what we are currently accustomed to.

 

[braintic]

if it hadn't occured when it did, we would be seeing a very different society to what we are currently accustomed to.

Indeed - a vastly improved one. (Assuming another nonsense religion hadn't filled the void - viz. the cargo gods - but given human nature that would probably be too much to hope for)
Hopefully one day scientists will eradicate the malignant god gene.

 

[dan964]

Indeed - a vastly improved one. (Assuming another nonsense religion hadn't filled the void - viz. the cargo gods - but given human nature that would probably be too much to hope for)
Hopefully one day scientists will eradicate the malignant god gene.

I find it interesting how make those claims a lot, with just as much backing as you claim the religious people do.

My main objections:
1. That is neglecting some of the positive advancements made by those who held to a viewpoint other than of paganism. History will tell you that there has been much benefit from those who have believed in God, and held to certain religious viewpoints. most secular views came out of and somewhat adopted a 'Christian' framework initially. Even the secular/atheism came out as an opposition to religious thought. The impact of the Reformation is also significant. And that is just starters.
2. The God gene theory has not a lot of research and is based on a single paper/study which happens to be unpublished and unreplicated.
http://www.breakpoint.org/component/content/article/71-features/13082-searching-for-the-god-gene (one such article from 2006-07)

 

[braintic]

I find it interesting how make those claims a lot, with just as much backing as you claim the religious people do.

My main objections:
1. That is neglecting some of the positive advancements made by those who held to a viewpoint other than of paganism. History will tell you that there has been much benefit from those who have believed in God, and held to certain religious viewpoints. most secular views came out of and somewhat adopted a 'Christian' framework initially. Even the secular/atheism came out as an opposition to religious thought. The impact of the Reformation is also significant. And that is just starters.
2. The God gene theory has not a lot of research and is based on a single paper/study which happens to be unpublished and unreplicated.
http://www.breakpoint.org/component/content/article/71-features/13082-searching-for-the-god-gene (one such article from 2006-07)

If the desire to believe in something supernatural is not expressed in our genes, what exactly explains the cargo god phenomenon?

I notice you didn't say "That is neglecting some of the positive advancements made by those BECAUSE they held to a viewpoint other than of paganism."
Advancements and atrocities come from PEOPLE, irrespective of their beliefs. However religious belief pollutes the minds of otherwise good people with hatred towards people outside their religion, and feeds the bigotry of bad people, often providing a means to legitimise their bigotry. Religion acts as a magnet for these people, knowing the power it gives them over the masses.

Yes, our society has borrowed much CULTURE and legal practice from religious groups, just as religion has borrowed culture from non-religious groups and practices. Any borrowings seen as 'good' are typically incidental to the actual belief.

And paganism is NOT atheism.