Debating Theism

a reply to: scorpio84

Paul's epistles are dated somewhere around 57 AD, which provides a much more reliable source and is evidence that the events were more than just hearsay. Especially when you consider that a portion (the creed in 1 Corinthians) is dated to just a few years after the resurrection. Even atheist New Testament scholars agree with this.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Giovonni

Belief in God - especially when you accept science - is pretty much hedging one's bets. It's a guess. It is irrational, because there is zero reason to believe. Science has already explained what happens down to the planck instant - it's just the question of before that instant - a point at which infinity can not be renormalized - what happened? There is not one thing that should lead a person to belief in a deity other than a personal need to have all questions answered.

It is not irrational because you still have not explained a) why anything exists at all and b) how to account for the earliest account of the resurrection, which is dated to just a few years after the event. Science cannot explain the first because it is outside the scope of science to do so. The second provides evidence that there were eyewitnesses available during the time of Jesus and no valid competing narrative exists that discounts these events. You say it's irrational without providing anything to backup the claim.

a reply to: Giovonni

It is not irrational because you still have not explained a) why anything exists at all and b) how to account for the earliest account of the resurrection, which is dated to just a few years after the event. Science cannot explain the first because it is outside the scope of science to do so. The second provides evidence that there were eyewitnesses available during the time of Jesus and no valid competing narrative exists that discounts these events. You say it's irrational without providing anything to backup the claim.

First, if evidence that God doesn't exist were given, would a believer accept it? On to your points:

a). The fact that I cannot explain why anything exists does not mean the answer is "God." It just means I don't know. In fact, any answer but I don't know is irrational and dishonest.

b). Who dated the events? Do we have the actual manuscripts from that time period? Give me evidence other than hearsay. Believing in pure hearsay is irrational. There's also the whole thing about the various manuscripts not agreeing with each other. My 4th century statement was wrong, I guess- I must have been thinking about a complete manuscript. Still, no proof of the resurrection other than someone saying it happened.

Believing something to be true when nothing indicates it to be that way is irrational.

a reply to: scorpio84

a reply to: scorpio84

First, I never said "I know" only it's a reasonable possibility. Second, you've just made the same error you accuse me of. I don't know, therefore eternal universe. if you're going to say I'm unreasonable then you've just applied it to your own position.

There are many problems with an eternal universe such as the impossibility of an actual infinite as indicated by the famous Hilbert Hotel paradox, or the Impossibility of an Actual Infinite that has been Traversed. If you don't know these perhaps you should familiarize yourself with them.

[url=http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... he-past/]

a reply to: scorpio84

Yea I'd be mad if I had as much flaws in my logic as you do.

originally posted by: scorpio84

b). Who dated the events? Do we have the actual manuscripts from that time period? Give me evidence other than hearsay. Believing in pure hearsay is irrational. There's also the whole thing about the various manuscripts not agreeing with each other. My 4th century statement was wrong, I guess- I must have been thinking about a complete manuscript. Still, no proof of the resurrection other than someone saying it happened.

Believing something to be true when nothing indicates it to be that way is irrational.

Many prominent scholars accept this including non-Christian German scholar Gerd Ludemann:
"We can assume that all the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus."

You indicate that you would only accept this if the documents were physically shown to be of that date. In essence you want to set the bar so high that it is unreasonable. You are certainly in the minority position here and oppose people who are experts in the field. I find that to be an irrational and likely a psychological response.

Just something to add to the discussion. In 2013 two scientists took Gödel's ontological proof (a formal argument for God's existence by the mathematician Kurt Gödel), fed it into into a computer and tested it using 'Higher-order modal logic'. It appears the answer was yes to Gods existence but the computer also criticised the argument.

"Kurt Gödel’s ontological argument for God’s existence has been formalized and automated on a computer with higher-order automated theorem provers. From Gödel’s premises, the computer proved: necessarily, there exists God. On the other hand, the theorem provers have also confirmed prominent criticism on Godel’s ontological argument, and they found some new results about it. The background theory of the work presented here offers a novel perspective towards a computational theoretical philosophy"

Gödel's ontological proof for Gods existence can be found here

Automating Godel’s Ontological Proof of God’s Existence with Higher-order Automated Theorem Provers

a reply to: Giovonni

Hardly anyone doubts the historicity of Jesus. In fact, most are in agreement that the synoptic Gospels are the best source for learning about him. What is doubted, however, is the authenticity of the resurrection story. Unfortunately, there is no way to say for absolute certain one way or another. We can, however, point to other similar stories of ascents into heaven (or whatever paradise-type realm) and ask - were all those cultures describing something that really happened? The idea of ascent/becoming one with God is not particular to the Bible.

a reply to: deliberator

Thanks for sharing. I will check it out.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Giovonni

Hardly anyone doubts the historicity of Jesus. In fact, most are in agreement that the synoptic Gospels are the best source for learning about him. What is doubted, however, is the authenticity of the resurrection story. Unfortunately, there is no way to say for absolute certain one way or another. We can, however, point to other similar stories of ascents into heaven (or whatever paradise-type realm) and ask - were all those cultures describing something that really happened? The idea of ascent/becoming one with God is not particular to the Bible.

You are equating what is rational with what we can know with absolute certainty. We can rationally believe something without knowing absolutely. The fact that the resurrection account can be traced back to within 2 years of the event is strong evidence that there were eyewitnesses. Clearly Paul and the Apostles were around. You're left with a few options. Either they made it up, were delusional, or experienced the event. Myth wouldn't have time to develop and there is no competing account saying that these guys were crazy. Not only that, but the actions of the followers after the event indicate a profound shift in attitude.

I've provided you philosophical arguments and expert derived evidence for a rational belief in Theism. If it's absolute proof you want then that is a different topic.

a reply to: Giovonni

It is not rational to believe something which:
-is pure hearsay
-has zero scientific basis
-is more or less a copy of similar stories

I studied theology at university and I'll tell you what it is, more or less - studying the works of other people and making speculations based on a series of speculations.

The problem is that theology necessarily begins with a false premise - that God exists (in the case of christian theology, this includes the resurrection and other events associated w/ Jesus).

An "expert" theologian is someone who sounds good, but still always starts back at square one.

That said, theology is good to study in order to learn exactly what the arguments being made are and how one should read scripture.

a reply to: scorpio84

1) Paul's letters aren't hearsay. He wrote the letters and spoke with eyewitnesses. He began as a skeptic but was transformed into a believer through his personal experience. His testimony would be admissible in any court of law.

2) When I originally engaged you in conversation I asked if you required proof. You said "No. There is a distinction to be made between showing something impossible and showing something is illogical. If a sound argument can be made, I'm open to it. "
- Now you're backtracking and saying you need scientific basis. We accept things all the time that don't meet the scientific method requirements.

3) The resurrection account is not a "copy" of other events. This is a false statement. Accounts of dying and rising Gods don't occur until after Jesus, around 150 AD.

- According to Bart Ehrman - “The majority of scholars agree… there is no unambiguous evidence that any pagans prior to Christianity believed in dying and rising gods. Anyone who thinks that Jesus was modeled on such deities needs to cite some evidence"

I agree with you that Theology is concerned with understanding God as he is revealed. Theology is not focused on arguments for the existence of God. For that you would focus more on Philosophy because it doesn't begin with the premise God exists.

Just curious. What what was your focus in Theology? I began college as an agnostic and like you thought belief was irrational. It was through studying philosophy, learning the arguments on both sides and examining the evidence that I came to have faith.

a reply to: Giovonni

1). Paul would likely be said to have suffered a hallucination, possibly spurned on by guilt (in regards to his conversion story described in the Acts of the Apostles).

2). No, I still don't require absolute proof. However, the claims of someone who arguable has hallucinations is not an adequate substitute. If the resurrection story and appearance to Paul were themes unique to Christianity, it may have more credence. As it is, Christian themes are not unique.

3). Apparently Ehrman and the "majority of scholars" have never heard of the Osiris Myth or the parallels to be found with Dionysus. There are even more ancient religions with this motif - however those who wrote the Bible would certainly have been familiar with Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Greek mythology - and if they didn't know the story or Dionysus, they would have known that of Bacchus.

My focus in theology was historical/analytical. I would say I spent the most time studying the early Church, the Church Fathers, and the early ecumenical councils. Specifically, I was focused on Roman Catholic theology, also did engage in study of Old Testament interpretation, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and Islam.

What was your focus in philosophy?

a reply to: scorpio84

Well you obviously never experienced synchronicity.
What you say about the point x and god doesn't make any sense.
And time is more than that, time dilation kind of shows it is a manipulatable force.
The need for deity is a personal decission. And i am still pro.
Also to say we know everything there is no unexplainable room for a god is a bit arrogant and also wrong.

a reply to: Peeple

What you say about the point x and god doesn't make any sense.

Kindly quote me so I know specifically what you are talking about.

Also to say we know everything there is no unexplainable room for a god is a bit arrogant and also wrong.

Ah, so I'm arrogant b/c I all blind faith irrational? That's nice - I'm about to toss up an article some people will probably call me racist for.

a reply to: scorpio84

No because you say you know it all. That's irrational.
I said god is an unlocateable force and your answer page 4 was very condescending, that's why i called you arrogant.

a reply to: Peeple

Why don't you quote what you are referencing. If you can't do that, annoy another thread.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Giovonni

1). Paul would likely be said to have suffered a hallucination, possibly spurned on by guilt (in regards to his conversion story described in the Acts of the Apostles).

2). No, I still don't require absolute proof. However, the claims of someone who arguable has hallucinations is not an adequate substitute. If the resurrection story and appearance to Paul were themes unique to Christianity, it may have more credence. As it is, Christian themes are not unique.

3). Apparently Ehrman and the "majority of scholars" have never heard of the Osiris Myth or the parallels to be found with Dionysus. There are even more ancient religions with this motif - however those who wrote the Bible would certainly have been familiar with Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Greek mythology - and if they didn't know the story or Dionysus, they would have known that of Bacchus.

1) I'm fairly certain Ehrman is well aware of the Osiris / Dionysus claims. In fact, here is what he says:

What is driving the mythicist’s agenda? Why do they work so hard at showing that Jesus never really lived? I do not have a definitive answer to that question, but I do have a hunch. It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge), are either atheists or agnostics. The ones I know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly atheist.

[url=http://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.com...]

2) You say it is "likely" Paul had hallucinations. First, you have no evidence he was prone to hallucinations. This is wild speculation. Second, Paul was in contact with Peter and James who also had their own experiences along with many other eyewitnesses of the time. If multiple groups have experiences of Jesus crucifixion, resurrection, and appearances afterwards then likelihood everyone was having fantastic delusions is improbable.

I suspect that you've committed yourself to the philosophy of Naturalism and therefore you are forced to eliminate anything which doesn't fit, even if the evidence suggests otherwise.

Interesting background. I've always enjoyed learning about the Church Fathers and the councils. I didn't specialize in philosophy. It didn't pay the bills. I just read a ton. I've also read many of the books from Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris. I find gaps in their logic when it comes to discussions of God, but Harris's discussion on Free will is very interesting. Anyways... off topic.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: namelesss

Well, as it is now, it seems that whatever is happening before what can be measured by the planck scale must necessarily include infinity.

I have no clue what you are talking about.
Not anything happens "before what can be measured by the Planck scale", what does that even mean?
And what does that have to do with the imaginary notion of 'infinity'?

However, the question then becomes does "infinity" imply "God" or does it simply imply eternity?

The 'eternity' is 'infinity' is imagination!
If you must compare a 'God' to your imaginary notion of 'eternal/infinite', then God cannot exist.
The very terms 'eternity/infinite' are error!

"You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds."
-Robert A. Wilson

By saying everything exists, it seems you are saying that our perception creates the reality.

Our perception does not 'create' anything, that is impossible.
We perceive That Which already exists!
Thoughts exist, rocks exist, to discriminate between the two, like you are, is schizophrenic; there is that which manifests to Consciousness, whether a thought of a unicorn, of the feelings of warmth on a sunny day.
It is all (existence) 'code' that 'displays' to the limitations of each unique Perspective!
We do not 'create' anything!
No one does!
We Are that We Are!

The unicorn in one's mind is as real as the horse grazing in the field.

Exactly!
As the horse is not to be perceived beneath the ocean, or in space, the unicorn can only be perceived as 'thought', in the imagination!
Both exist!
Everything exists!

However - how do you explain that certain realities are made manifest while others stay in the mind but never become manifest?

Just like that! *__-

All existence, ever, is 'manifested' to Consciousness!
Not anything exists that is not perceived!

I don't know why I am not notified of these replies.
I had to stumble on this.
I am probably missing much.
It seems like such a simple thing to fix!
Mods?

Very interesting discussion. The ones starting to throw around insults are normally the ones loosing the debate and are very well aware of it.