Argument for God's existence.

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Yes, but not knowingly. And as Jesus' brother and a skeptic while Jesus was alive, he would more than most know the real truth of whether Jesus rose from the dead. Notice how in the "Elvis is still alive believers", NONE are relatives of Elvis.

As stated in another response, people can be falsely accused of something, and still be punished. We really don't know what his brother believed, or did not believe. But the history could still state that one is killed for a belief, when maybe they never truly held or felt in reality. But even if he did, how would this validate the truth?

Again, if martyrdom is the gauge for truth, then radical Muslim extremists are clearly the winners.


Then you are one of the few atheists I have talked to where that is the case.

Great. Now what?

Name another major religion where the founder was killed and then rose from the dead and people believe they are communicating with that founder.

Gonna have to 'rubber stamp' you here...

Argument from Ignorance: "The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

"Oh yea, can you think of a better explanation?"


But aside from this... the response is simple: Just because the story line might be unique, does nothing to validate it's truth.

Who would you want to write your biography and you think would be most accurate? I bet you would say your family and friends. Well they are the ones that wrote about Jesus, therefore it is most likely to be the most accurate. Not some stranger that never knew you. And there is no evidence that the bible has had any major editing since the originals were written. So there was no "crafting' by the church. See my earlier post about Josephus being a forgery, only few extreme skeptics believe that. Most scholars do not believe that.

"God" inspired it... It was God guided for correction and accuracy, as stated from the NT. It would not matter who was the writer - (ghost writer, direct witness, family, other)... God would not allow an incorrect story to ultimately be published, would He?

But we know it was the "church" whom published the approved later writings of the Biblical canon. Which demonstrates a bias. Not a third party source. So I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make...?

The Josephus passage was edited by later Christian scribes. They edited it to taste. Most scholars agree. A link was provided in the prior post. You have been proven incorrect.


Yes that is correct and it is one the most historically well supported events in the Bible.

Disagree. Outside the bias filled already Christian believing authors, decades/centuries later, there exists little to no third party accounts of such events which appear credible. And when you use Josephus, as one of your (key note) pieces of evidence to try and refute my claim, it is immediately exposed as to how your argument looses credibility. Again, Christian scribes later edited Josephus writings to taste. Please finally reconcile this conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
You mean if He proved that He existed to you with 100% certainty, you would still not believe He exists? That is very strange and very unlikely for the rest of humanity.

cv: No. I'm stating that KNOWING He exists does not ruin my freewill to follow (or) reject Him. But as it stands, I doubt mere existence of a postmortem Jesus. Thus, if I doubt He exists now, then accepting or rejecting His request becomes a mute point, right?
You are partially correct, but I am referring to knowing He exists in all His glory and goodness, you could not resist repenting of your disbelief and believing fully in Him. I believe it would cause your immediate conversion and overcome your will, but it would not allow you to grow spiritually and therefore not allow the complete destruction of evil forever.

Ed1wolf said:
For most humans if that occurred they would immediately believe in Him without a doubt, thereby not allowing for faith. And only faith can provide spiritual growth which is one of His main purposes for the universe because faith is what will destroy evil forever which is His primary purpose for creating the universe.

cv: But above, you stated: "millions still claim to have a personal relationship with Him that occurs everyday."

Following this logic, then He should never reveal Himself to anyone. Millions/billions are without 'faith' by God's choice. Furthermore, He would not have presented 2000+ years ago, and also in the OT.
No, because there is more than enough evidence for His existence to believe in Him by faith, so they are without faith by their own choice.

cv: My point is that presenting evidence of His mere existence does not appear to infringe upon your freewill in any way. So why play hide-and-seek with me, a person whom genuinely sought after Him for decades?
I agree but see above that I meant more than just His mere existence. He is not playing hide and see with you, He has revealed a great deal of evidence of His existence and even much evidence of His goodness and glory, and yet you still refuse to believe.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
He has revealed a great deal of evidence of His existence and even much evidence of His goodness and glory, and yet you still refuse to believe.

No one ‘refuses to believe’. Belief isn’t a choice. You’re either convinced, or you’re not.

And if there is a Yahweh ‘revealing’ evidence to me, all he’s ever done is send apologists armed with some of the crappiest, flimsiest arguments ever devised by humankind, which fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. So he’s either abysmally incompetent, or he really must not want me to believe.

I’m astounded you think it’s a good idea to still keep this thread alive.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
It doesn’t matter if we can or can’t trace the exact succession of incremental changes that took place to form a modern human eye. All the evidence suggests that it indeed happened. Unless you can point to a structure in the eye that you can prove couldn’t have formed naturally, you haven’t presented anything that challenges evolution. I assume you’re wanting to challenge evolution with this line of argumentation, correct?
Look up the phototransduction cascade of chemical reactions necessary for sight. If one chemical in this cascade is not present during the transition from simple to complex eyes then sight is not possible.


ga: There aren’t two sides on evolution in the scientific community. It is fundamental to the study of biology. You have been listening to pseudoscience and religious propaganda from the side opposing evolution.
No, evolution is not fundamental to biology Read this about Francis Crick, "Yet after urging that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved,” molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick remarked, “It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large role in guiding biological research, but that is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now.”
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
What are you talking about? We have the Commentāriī dē Bellō Gallicō, a firsthand account of the Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar himself. That didn't happen 900 years later.
I am referring to extant copies of the documents. The oldest extant copy of the Gallic Wars is 900 years after the event. We have extant copies of NT documents less than 100 years after the events.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Look up the phototransduction cascade of chemical reactions necessary for sight. If one chemical in this cascade is not present during the transition from simple to complex eyes then sight is not possible.
We’ve been through this. Things don’t only evolve chemical by chemical, so pointing out that lopping off one chemical renders the structure useless is meaningless.

No, evolution is not fundamental to biology Read this about Francis Crick, "Yet after urging that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved,” molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick remarked, “It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large role in guiding biological research, but that is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now.”
Yes, evolution is a fundamental principle of biology. Francis Crick was a pioneer in the study of DNA, so it’s natural that he would remark about being largely in the dark with little guidance from evolution. But that doesn’t change the fact that evolution is a unifying theory of biology.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So you admit it is unguided.
In the “having an intended path” sense that you’re using the word, yes. It still follows a path that is set naturally, but there is no intent behind it.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I would agree that Anselm's conceptually bound approach is flawed, but I'm not sure that Aquinas succeeds at severing thought from existence altogether.

I found this tweet from Feser interesting:

EFPcp4kX4AAyZWY
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I found this tweet from Feser interesting:

EFPcp4kX4AAyZWY

Gotta love that dogmatic Thomism. :) But I kind of feel like we're just playing an epic game of rocks-paper-scissors here.

Aquinas beats Anselm.
Kant beats Aquinas.
Hegel beats Kant.

(Where Hegel is just an updated Ontological Argument.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You found one of the most irenic things Feser has ever uttered to be dogmatic? :p

Thomas isn't dogmatic, he's just honest. And there are Thomists and Thomists.

Irenic!? That is like a war cry! ^_^

But no, I don't think Thomas is dogmatic. I mean, except by virtue of accepting certain dogmas, but that's a different sort of dogmatism. I do think that Feser is a dogmatic Thomist, though.

Actually, that's probably not fair. There's a lot of analytic influences in there too, but Thomists going after the Ontological Argument is almost comically stereotypical. :sorry:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Irenic!? That is like a war cry! ^_^

For Feser, everything is a war cry. You need a good ear to hear the different timbres of bark. :)

But no, I don't think Thomas is dogmatic. I mean, except by virtue of accepting certain dogmas, but that's a different sort of dogmatism.

Good, I agree!

I do think that Feser is a dogmatic Thomist, though.

Interestingly enough, he has been giving nods to Scotists of late.

Actually, that's probably not fair. There's a lot of analytic influences in there too, but Thomists going after the Ontological Argument is almost comically stereotypical. :sorry:

True. :D
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I disagree. In fact, reality is everything.
Not if all we are is atoms, no mind, no free will, no real science, no real knowledge, no love, no morality, and no way of knowing if an objective reality really exists.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Please provide ONE mainstream scholar that believes that the entire text was added 200 years later.
Richard Carrier :0 You asked for one. I gave one. All kidding aside...
Richard Carrier, who BTW, I debated a little many years ago on Internet Infidels, is not mainstream, has a PhD in European Literature, not in any ancient Biblical languages or Biblical documents. Sorry, try again.

cv: I stated text was added. And in this case, it was...

https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence

"Mykytiuk agrees with most scholars that Christian scribes modified portions of the passage"

No, you were claiming that the WHOLE section about Jesus was added. No mainstream scholar believes that as I stated earlier. I am not denying that there was some modifications to the passage. But the gist of it is real according to most scholars, and most agree that the Arabic version is probably closest to Josephus' original words. And then of course, the evidence for His resurrection is contained in the James passage which has not been disputed by anybody except a few hyperskeptic internet activists like Carrier.


cv: Anything added, after the fact, is essentially a forgery or mock up; as it was not written by Josephus. In this case, such was done so to 'validate' 'Jesus'. And now, Christians, including you, now want to use it for the exact intended purpose you are presenting... See below.
No, only minor modifications, the original combined with the James section confirms the basic gist of the NT description of Christ and confirms that he was fairly well known by non Christian jewish historians. And is independent evidence of His resurrection.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Not if all we are is atoms, no mind, no free will, no real science, no real knowledge, no love, no morality, and no way of knowing if an objective reality really exists.
If this is your existence, then I’m truly sorry for you.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Richard Carrier, who BTW, I debated a little many years ago on Internet Infidels, is not mainstream, has a PhD in European Literature, not in any ancient Biblical languages or Biblical documents. Sorry, try again.


No, you were claiming that the WHOLE section about Jesus was added. No mainstream scholar believes that as I stated earlier. I am not denying that there was some modifications to the passage. But the gist of it is real according to most scholars, and most agree that the Arabic version is probably closest to Josephus' original words. And then of course, the evidence for His resurrection is contained in the James passage which has not been disputed by anybody except a few hyperskeptic internet activists like Carrier.



No, only minor modifications, the original combined with the James section confirms the basic gist of the NT description of Christ and confirms that he was fairly well known by non Christian jewish historians. And is independent evidence of His resurrection.

You've apparently read post #2169 incorrectly. Below are bullet points to answer all of your concerns:

1. I stated, 'all kidding aside.'
2. This thread is to argue for the existence of God, not men claiming to be God. We have plenty of that all over the place. I've never denied the existence of a man named Jesus, whom claimed He was a Messiah, preached, and died.
3. You NOW appear extremely hung up on scholarly sources about Josephus, but somehow, when presented from evolutionary biology and big bang cosmology, maybe not so much?
4. What was written by Josephus, prior to CHRISTIAN scribes getting a hold of it, whom then attempt to 'prove' something altogether different? (See point #7)
5. You may want to re-evaluate what (you) consider 'minor details/additions'. There exists a huge difference between a man claiming he was a Messiah, and what Christians later added to the text.
6. Again, if martyrdom was all it took to demonstrate the veracity of a claim, then Muslim extremists take the cake.
7. The 'resurrection' claim is the argument for God. And as such, the original Josephus publications then don't really count.
8. Again, outside the bias filled Bible itself, there exists little to no evidence for a resurrection claim.
9. Again, the fact that 'Josephus' was one of your first go-to pieces of 'evidence for a resurrection claim, is quite telling indeed.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I've always found these martyrdom rationales fascinating...

-- Once convicted, it would not matter if he was lying, telling the truth, or fabricating his prior statements, he would still be executed. The story could still be told that he was killed for believing, even if he really didn't. Someone could have overheard him saying something, and tell authority, and he's punished regardless. People were killed for 'believing', or even thought to believe in the 'incorrect' thing; even when they didn't. Today, it still exists in more primitive areas. And it's fair to say these times were more 'primitive'...


No, generally, among the ancient jews and Romans, if you recanted you were allowed to live and James did not recant. Therefore, he most likely believed what he was dying for.

cv: -- If dying for a cause were the measure of veracity, then radical Muslim extremists are the clear winners.
No, Muslims are not dying for the veracity of a specific historical event, Muslim martyrs are soldiers for their faith, they are dying to kill the infidel.


cv: I haven't yet tried.... Once you admit that the Josephus document has been altered, in a direct attempt to substantiate Jesus, we can then proceed. But until then, we have documentation, where most scholars agree that such documentation was later altered, by CHRISTIANS, to 'prove' Jesus's validity.
I agree the specific Jesus reference cited earlier has been altered but not totally rewritten. Most scholars believe that the gist WAS written by Josephus as well as the section on James his brother. And Josephus version most closely matches the Arabic version.


cv. I did.
No, see my previous post about Carrier, he is not mainstream and is not even a biblical scholar.

cv; False, as seen above. Christians modified the document to taste. Please reconcile this conclusion, just as the historians have...

Fraid not, see above.

cv: The rest of your argument, thus far, becomes a mute point.

Furthermore, the 'Josephus' passage is pivotal... If the Jesus story was already strong, on it's own, Christians would not find it necessary to use Josephus to 'validate' external sources for His actions. Furthermore, Christians would not have felt it necessary to add specific words to the writings of Josephus to 'strengthen' their beliefs. And it would not be one of your 'go-to' pieces of 'evidence'.
No, it is not pivotal. Josephus is just one of several extrabiblical validations of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. See above about the ancient creed written within 3 years of his death confirming His resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
No, generally, among the ancient jews and Romans, if you recanted you were allowed to live and James did not recant. Therefore, he most likely believed what he was dying for.


Even if you were correct, which you most likely cannot prove regardless, if dying for a believe was the measure to a truth, than Muslims would be the clear winners. Thus, this entire line of yours, this argumentation, fails before it even is brought forth :)

No, Muslims are not dying for the veracity of a specific historical event, Muslim martyrs are soldiers for their faith, they are dying to kill the infidel.

Yes they are sir. You are incorrect. They believe Muhammad command(s) these acts. Muhammad is apparently a historical figure, and his commands are considered historical events, from their claimed true historical book of truth. Thus, again, dying for belief has no gauge or apparent merit in reality, does it?


I agree the specific Jesus reference cited earlier has been altered but not totally rewritten. Most scholars believe that the gist WAS written by Josephus as well as the section on James his brother. And Josephus version most closely matches the Arabic version.

You appear to be severely watering down your account/position of 'altered'. Below are the contested parts, which appear to have suddenly arrived (later) in bold. Meaning, not by Josephus's hands. Meaning, forgery...

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

(Translation from Loeb Classical Library, italics mine)

No, see my previous post about Carrier, he is not mainstream and is not even a biblical scholar.

When I stated, 'all kidding aside', what part did you not get? I don't buy his Jesus myth position either. Please cool your jets...

Biblical scholars exist, whom believe the entire Bible to be a work of fiction. What does being considered a mainstream scholar have to do with anything???? The fact of the matter, is we have altered script for Josephus.... The parts which are altered, are the direct parts attempting to 'validate' a resurrection. And coincidence prevails, that it was Christian scribes whom touched these documents ;) And now, you are using it as a 'key' element to support a resurrection claim...?

As demonstrated above, your cited source, for extra-biblical 'evidence of a resurrection, has been demonstrated to be a forgery. (i.e.) The parts which attempt to validate a resurrection -- which is the entire premise of this thread...


No, it is not pivotal. Josephus is just one of several extrabiblical validations of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And now you can stop using this one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums