How Do I Know If There's A God?

[Anomaly]

Just as possible that the mythology grew along with and after this human's few years. An leader speaking from the grave can't be killed again. An appealing transcendent message to people's under occupation. You can oppress and kill me in this life, but I'll be in glory in the next life. What's not to like if you have no hope in this world. And the madness grew.
People believe reverend Moon is a messiah, Jim Jones, David Koresh, they'll be beamed up on a comet, or we have an inner alien. Many swear by it and sacrifice their family, fortune, and lives. Lucky happenstance, the right social context and politics, and were off to the history books that are written by the winners. Hidden golden tablets , a divinely inspired council, enduring words of common sense with believers striving for lofty goals, not necessarily with evil intent but with the best motives...
It's human nature to want to believe in something, to make bearable the difficult and incomprehensible. We've evolved into being able to imagine and ponder the intangible. That doesn't make our dreams and desires concrete realities, golden tablets, Kaptu, imams in wells, gods with hammers, or Underdog.

[4588686]

 

And thanks for the Wiki link, though I'm not sure how it's supposed to refute anything I said.  

 

 

My point, as I said in that post and in numerous previous posts, is that your sweeping, unnuanced claims are:

 

1-Incorrect

2-The key to why this argument is so dumb.

 

For example you make this sweeping, completely unnuanced historical claim:

 

"The truth is, despite your ill-informed claims, that claims of a man to divinity were certainly not part of the religious culture and beliefs of the fiercely monotheistic first-century Jews, who regarded any human identification with the One Almighty God, or claims to be His Only-begotten Son, as blasphemy - considered by Jews to be worst possible sin, and punishable by death."

 

Oh, hey, look at this first century Jew espousing theological views far more nuanced (and influenced by surrounding cultures) than your proclamations would allow:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo#Ancestry.2C_family_and_early_life

[Socrates]

Just as possible that the mythology grew along with and after this human's few years. An leader speaking from the grave can't be killed again. An appealing transcendent message to people's under occupation. You can oppress and kill me in this life, but I'll be in glory in the next life. What's not to like if you have no hope in this world. And the madness grew.
People believe reverend Moon is a messiah, Jim Jones, David Koresh, they'll be beamed up on a comet, or we have an inner alien. Many swear by it and sacrifice their family, fortune, and lives. Lucky happenstance, the right social context and politics, and were off to the history books that are written by the winners. Hidden golden tablets , a divinely inspired council, enduring words of common sense with believers striving for lofty goals, not necessarily with evil intent but with the best motives...
It's human nature to want to believe in something, to make bearable the difficult and incomprehensible. We've evolved into being able to imagine and ponder the intangible. That doesn't make our dreams and desires concrete realities, golden tablets, Kaptu, imams in wells, gods with hammers, or Underdog.

 

So you choose the "lunatic" option (or perhaps "liar") - at least with regards to Jesus' Apostles.

 

So, according to you, Jesus's Apostles were just crazy cult leaders a la Jim Jones and David Koresh.

Thanks for sharing.

[Socrates]

My point, as I said in that post and in numerous previous posts, is that your sweeping, unnuanced claims are:

 

1-Incorrect

2-The key to why this argument is so dumb.

 

For example you make this sweeping, completely unnuanced historical claim:

 

"The truth is, despite your ill-informed claims, that claims of a man to divinity were certainly not part of the religious culture and beliefs of the fiercely monotheistic first-century Jews, who regarded any human identification with the One Almighty God, or claims to be His Only-begotten Son, as blasphemy - considered by Jews to be worst possible sin, and punishable by death."

 

Oh, hey, look at this first century Jew espousing theological views far more nuanced (and influenced by surrounding cultures) than your proclamations would allow:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo#Ancestry.2C_family_and_early_life

 

Apparently you think there is something about the life or thought of Philo of Alexandria that deals a crushing blow to my arguments, as you keep copy-pasting links to Wikipedia articles about him.

 

Since I'm a dunce, perhaps you can spell out exactly what it is about him that you think refutes my claims and enlighten us all, as I'm not seeing anything at all in there that refutes or contradicts anything I said.

 

As far as I can see, Philo never claimed to be divine, nor claimed any other man to divine, nor did anyone claim him to be divine.  Neither did Philo live in Judea.  However, the article does talk about Philo and the other Jews of his community refusing to honor the Roman Caesar as a god, or build statues or temples to him - which confirms my point about the Jews refusing to recognize any man as divine, and regarding such claims as blasphemy (as is also recorded in the Gospels regarding the reaction of the Chief Priest to Christ's claims).

[Anomaly]

So you choose the "lunatic" option (or perhaps "liar") - at least with regards to Jesus' Apostles.

So, according to you, Jesus's Apostles were just crazy cult leaders a la Jim Jones and David Koresh.
Thanks for sharing.

Apostles were probably misguided but committed believers caught up in the whole thing. Doesn't mean they were lunatics. Travolta isn't a drooling idiot but he's giving much of his money time and effort to Scientology, as is many others. Their commitment to such an absurd institution doesn't make it a reality.

There is no tangible proof a God exists. His existence is just as logical or illogical as non existence. As believers are want to say, Fairh is solely a gift from God, so if you can't believe, obviously you are in the majority that aren't God's chosen. Kinda like the Emporer's New Clothes with violence.

[Era Might]

Epiphanies of gods were a standard part of religion in the ancient world. It was something pagans and Christians shared, a belief in the interactions of gods and men, often in the guise of humans. For a group of Christians to see Christ on the road to Emmaus was entirely believable, just as a pagan might receive an oracle from Apollo. Homer wrote a whole book about gods interacting with men, and we consider that part of the foundation of Western Civilization. It doesn't make him or us lunatics. We live in a world of electric lights and technology, which has destroyed the possibility of a human culture where human and divine mix (unless someone is hocking a grilled cheese image of the Virgin Mary on eBay).

 

As far as Christ not fitting in to the religious expectations of his time, that's true of most great religious figures. If they fit in with everyone else, nobody would care. That's what makes a good story. Nobody would care about Buddha if he fit in with the people of his time. Nobody would care about Muhammad if his message was, "I'm like everyone else, keep doing what you're doing."

Edited May 14, 2014 by Era Might

[4588686]

Apparently you think there is something about the life or thought of Philo of Alexandria that deals a crushing blow to my arguments, as you keep copy-pasting links to Wikipedia articles about him.

 

Since I'm a dunce, perhaps you can spell out exactly what it is about him that you think refutes my claims and enlighten us all, as I'm not seeing anything at all in there that refutes or contradicts anything I said.

 

As far as I can see, Philo never claimed to be divine, nor claimed any other man to divine, nor did anyone claim him to be divine.  Neither did Philo live in Judea.  However, the article does talk about Philo and the other Jews of his community refusing to honor the Roman Caesar as a god, or build statues or temples to him - which confirms my point about the Jews refusing to recognize any man as divine, and regarding such claims as blasphemy (as is also recorded in the Gospels regarding the reaction of the Chief Priest to Christ's claims).

 

 

I'm really not sure at this point what about my assertion is unclear.  If you would like a specific example of how Philo's Hellenized Judaism shows that there was more nuance in Jewish philosophy and thought at the time than you're very black and white, unnuanced assertions about what first century Jews believed would allow, then here is an example:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo's_view_of_God#Relation_of_the_Logos_to_God

 

"Philo's conception of the Logos is directly related to the Middle Platonic view of God as unmoved and utterly transcendent. As such, the Logos becomes the aspect of the divine that operates in the world—through whom the world is created and sustained."

Edited May 15, 2014 by Hasan

[Socrates]

Apostles were probably misguided but committed believers caught up in the whole thing. Doesn't mean they were lunatics. Travolta isn't a drooling idiot but he's giving much of his money time and effort to Scientology, as is many others. Their commitment to such an absurd institution doesn't make it a reality.

 

If the Apostles were merely misguided but sincere in their beliefs, this begs the question of who was fooling them into believing.

 

Do you claim Jesus Christ Himself duped His Apostles into believing lies in order for them to give up all to follow Him?

This would make Him a liar.  (Or at best a lunatic, if you assert He wrongly but sincerely believed Himself to be the Son of God, and Savior.)

 

Since so much of early Christian witness was based on Christ's literal resurrection from the dead, if He did not in fact die and was resurrected, there was a lot of blatant lies and deception going on.  

If this was all just a story, the Jews could have simply produced his dead body from the tomb, and put an end to all that nonsense.

(Or else, we're forced to believe elaborate conspiracy theories about stealing the body, paying off the soldiers guarding the tomb to lie, etc. - hardly the work of misguided but sincere believers, but rather of clever and deceitful conmen, who were nonetheless all willing to die rather than expose their con.)

 

(And yes, John Travolta is an idiot, the willing dupe of conman L. Ron Hubbard's followers - who are laughing all the way to the bank.)

 

 

There is no tangible proof a God exists. His existence is just as logical or illogical as non existence.

 

 

Your opinion.  We disagree, though its needless to rehash that whole debate again.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Socrates

[Socrates]

I'm really not sure at this point what about my assertion is unclear.  If you would like a specific example of how Philo's Hellenized Judaism shows that there was more nuance in Jewish philosophy and thought at the time than you're very black and white, unnuanced assertions about what first century Jews believed would allow, then here is an example:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo's_view_of_God#Relation_of_the_Logos_to_God

 

"Philo's conception of the Logos is directly related to the Middle Platonic view of God as unmoved and utterly transcendent. As such, the Logos becomes the aspect of the divine that operates in the world—through whom the world is created and sustained."

 

I never claimed there was no nuance in ancient Jewish thought, so you can stop attacking strawmen.

 

Again, Philos never claimed to be the Divine Logos, nor that any other human being was.

You have not provided anything at all to prove that a man believing oneself to be Divine was rational, or an accepted opinion among devout Jews.  Rather it was considered a crime of blasphemy - one that cost Jesus His life.

 

But I'm through repeating myself.  You have no argument here at all - merely calling my statements stupid and copy-pasting irrelevant articles from Wikipedia.  Seems even your own low standards of "debate" have fallen.

[Socrates]

[double post]

Edited May 15, 2014 by Socrates

[Fidei Defensor]

Apostles were probably misguided but committed believers caught up in the whole thing. Doesn't mean they were lunatics. Travolta isn't a drooling idiot but he's giving much of his money time and effort to Scientology, as is many others. Their commitment to such an absurd institution doesn't make it a reality.

There is no tangible proof a God exists. His existence is just as logical or illogical as non existence. As believers are want to say, Fairh is solely a gift from God, so if you can't believe, obviously you are in the majority that aren't God's chosen. Kinda like the Emporer's New Clothes with violence.

The problem I have with that theory is that if Jesus was crucified and killed, what did the Apostles have to gain by getting "caught up," as you say, and carrying on with their new found faith?  Even in the Bible they point out that many "revolutionaries" have come, but upon being taken care of, their followers disbanded—

 

"Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail." Acts 5:35-38

 

​Christianity came to conquer the entire Western civilization.  It seems a bit, well, unlikely, if it were nothing more than the fantasies of a group of misled men.

[Era Might]

The problem I have with that theory is that if Jesus was crucified and killed, what did the Apostles have to gain by getting "caught up," as you say, and carrying on with their new found faith?  Even in the Bible they point out that many "revolutionaries" have come, but upon being taken care of, their followers disbanded—

 

"Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail." Acts 5:35-38

 

​Christianity came to conquer the entire Western civilization.  It seems a bit, well, unlikely, if it were nothing more than the fantasies of a group of misled men.

 

Christianity inherited the Roman empire and a long legacy of pagan thinkers. Christianity was fortunate that it embraced pagan thinkers, because biblical modes of thinking aren't exactly focused on this world. Christian bishops would rail against the anger of God being visited on his people, while skeptical pagans would look and say what are you talking about? There are rational explanations, why are we going backwards to mythology and divine intervention? Maybe an earthquake is just an earthquake.

 

Another important point is that while Christianity inherited the Roman empire, it also lost it. The formation of "Europe" as we know it followed, but modernity only emerged as Western Civilization stopped thinking religiously and started thinking rationally (starting with the renaissance which went back to classical sources).

 

What does a man have to gain from working 60 hours a week? Probably some nice things, but dedication to something is not proof of God. The rise of Islam was also a remarkably unexpected occurrence.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Era Might

[Fidei Defensor]

Christianity inherited the Roman empire and a long legacy of pagan thinkers. Christianity was fortunate that it embraced pagan thinkers, because biblical modes of thinking aren't exactly focused on this world. Christian bishops would rail against the anger of God being visited on his people, while skeptical pagans would look and say what are you talking about? There are rational explanations, why are we going backwards to mythology and divine intervention? Maybe an earthquake is just an earthquake.

 

Another important point is that while Christianity inherited the Roman empire, it also lost it. The formation of "Europe" as we know it followed, but modernity only emerged as Western Civilization stopped thinking religiously and started thinking rationally (starting with the renaissance which went back to classical sources).

 

What does a man have to gain from working 60 hours a week? Probably some nice things, but dedication to something is not proof of God. The rise of Islam was also a remarkably unexpected occurrence.

Of course, you are correct, dedication alone is not proof of anything by itself.

 

I do find it a bit of an accomplishment for the Church to still be around to this day, however.

[Era Might]

Of course, you are correct, dedication alone is not proof of anything by itself.

 

I do find it a bit of an accomplishment for the Church to still be around to this day, however.

 

An accomplishment in what sense? The church has done a lot to help build a civilization, no doubt, but it has lost its power, and just as paganism disappeared once it no longer had a social context (because Christianity had displaced it), Christianity has also been disappearing in its own civilization. That isn't a good sign when a civilization you helped build is strong despite you and not because of you. I don't think Christianity will disappear, because modern civilization values things like pluralism, personal faith, etc. But the church is now just one religion among many...thanks to the right to religious freedom that the world had to slaughter its way to create.

 

Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam have all been around a long time as well, just not in the West. They, too, survive because they live in civilizations they helped create. But even they are facing issues of secularization and how to survive when their people start living in modernity and less in their traditional civilization, a battle which the church has more or less admitted defeat on, and now tries to work with the world that overthrew it.

[Fidei Defensor]

An accomplishment in what sense? The church has done a lot to help build a civilization, no doubt, but it has lost its power, and just as paganism disappeared once it no longer had a social context (because Christianity had displaced it), Christianity has also been disappearing in its own civilization. That isn't a good sign when a civilization you helped build is strong despite you and not because of you. I don't think Christianity will disappear, because modern civilization values things like pluralism, personal faith, etc. But the church is now just one religion among many...thanks to the right to religious freedom that the world had to slaughter its way to create.

 

Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam have all been around a long time as well, just not in the West. They, too, survive because they live in civilizations they helped create. But even they are facing issues of secularization and how to survive when their people start living in modernity and less in their traditional civilization, a battle which the church has more or less admitted defeat on, and now tries to work with the world that overthrew it.

An accomplishment because the Church still exists as an organization. Disembodied religions still exist from long ago, but not many can boast an actual centralized organization that has outlasted civilizations.

[Era Might]

An accomplishment because the Church still exists as an organization. Disembodied religions still exist from long ago, but not many can boast an actual centralized organization that has outlasted civilizations.

 

I find that the least remarkable thing about the church. Its centralized organization is also relatively modern, as it had to shore itself up to defend its place in a society that was fast moving on. And going even beyond that, I would say that the centralized organization is one of the unfortunate legacies it has left modern civilization, which has imitated the church and its desire to keep its hand in everything through a vast bureaucracy.

[Fidei Defensor]

Just as possible that the mythology grew along with and after this human's few years. An leader speaking from the grave can't be killed again. An appealing transcendent message to people's under occupation. You can oppress and kill me in this life, but I'll be in glory in the next life. What's not to like if you have no hope in this world. And the madness grew.
People believe reverend Moon is a messiah, Jim Jones, David Koresh, they'll be beamed up on a comet, or we have an inner alien. Many swear by it and sacrifice their family, fortune, and lives. Lucky happenstance, the right social context and politics, and were off to the history books that are written by the winners. Hidden golden tablets , a divinely inspired council, enduring words of common sense with believers striving for lofty goals, not necessarily with evil intent but with the best motives...
It's human nature to want to believe in something, to make bearable the difficult and incomprehensible. We've evolved into being able to imagine and ponder the intangible. That doesn't make our dreams and desires concrete realities, golden tablets, Kaptu, imams in wells, gods with hammers, or Underdog.

Honestly, humans are very attached to their senses and so I don't think its all that natural to find "invisible" beings or forces to believe in. We want to believe in what we see happening, its why science has always been important (whether under that name or simply discovering nature.) I don't see it as a necessarily natural trait to make up something supernatural.

[Fidei Defensor]

I find that the least remarkable thing about the church. Its centralized organization is also relatively modern, as it had to shore itself up to defend its place in a society that was fast moving on. And going even beyond that, I would say that the centralized organization is one of the unfortunate legacies it has left modern civilization, which has imitated the church and its desire to keep its hand in everything through a vast bureaucracy.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I'm not fond of bureaucracy, but I do think that the Church deserves some credit for keeping its place in the world and avoiding the prevailing "gates of hell," so to speak.

[Anomaly]

Honestly, humans are very attached to their senses and so I don't think its all that natural to find "invisible" beings or forces to believe in. We want to believe in what we see happening, its why science has always been important (whether under that name or simply discovering nature.) I don't see it as a necessarily natural trait to make up something supernatural.

Seriously? I just... Oh no you didn't say... You did pay a little attention in school...

[Fidei Defensor]

Seriously? I just... Oh no you didn't say... You did pay a little attention in school...

Thanks for that helpful response.