How I know there is no God

[DoubtingThomas29]

Is it better to believe in a God? Let us weigh the pros and cons of that question.

Is it better to have fire insurance, or keep a fire extinguisher of logic and reason near by to put out perdition's flames, for all of humanity?

You see I have a bunch of non-christian friends, and when I was a christian I knew I couldn't convert them, I didn't have a prayer.

I was friends with a guy named Shamshad and he was a muslim, so was his deceased father and my own father has been an atheist the whole time I have known him.

So get that extinguisher out, grab a glass of water and think about this everyone.

Think about this, how is a Ghost going to get a woman pregnant? How is God going to get a woman pregnant, and still have her be a virgin?

Why would a caring and loving God let there be any chance at all of a person being tortured for all of eternity? This is nonsenese, it doesn't add up, we must reject this notion to finally know the truth.

If you know there is no hell for anybody when they die, you will have peace your whole life.

My belief system gives me great relief. This beats fire insurance all to hell, because there ain't no fire coming. Think what kind of premiums you'll save.

I say so what if there is no purpose to life, I don't need a purpose. I live for the sake of living. I live for life's own sake. I don't need a cause or a politicain to redeem my country, and I don't need false beliefes.

I don't care about nothing, I just want to survive a long time and have a good clear conscience, and do my best at my career. That is all I care about. I just want to survive. Which isn't even that hard really.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How am I being deceived?

Consider an entity that isn't God, but is sufficiently powerful to convince you that it is. What is stopping your 'knowledge' of God's existance being fabricated by a deceptive entity?

I am living for God...but if you think there is no God then me living the way I am will just be what it was and I was living some strict way and either of us wont have any consequences when we die.

Indeed. But I am talking about the nature of your 'knowledge'. You say you know God exists. I am quizzing you about this 'knowledge'.

But there is a GOD

How do you know? More importantly, how do you know that the thing you 'know' exists is actually God, and not some deciever?

so I am living the way he wants me to,

How so? Knowing something exists is a tad different from knowing what it wants you to do.
Not to mention the question of why an entity as phenominal as God would care what humans do; after all, we are just water encased in a protien shell. Nothing more.

and I know I am going to heaven.

Is this knowledge the same as the knowledge that God exists?

I know its better to believe than to not.

Why? I won't bother asking how you know this, but I wonder if you can explain to me why it is better to believe.

Why risk dying and finding out then, when you can believe now and seek him now and have salavtion through Jesus,

EVEN if you dont think he exsists..but you find out in death wont you regret the choice you made in life to not believe?

No. But more to the point, will you regret the choice not to be Hindu if, when you die, you come face-to-face with Vishnu, Shiva, and all the rest?

This question is very important. Please answer it, LEP.

But IF there isnt a God....then okay..we are both fine.

Why? OK, the Judaeo-Christian God may not exist, but what about Allah? He's gonna be mighty рissеd that you didn't pray to him five times a day.

But that isnt resonable...

Do explain.

but there is a right and wrong way to do things in life by law...

Law? What law?

so there must be after death...

Assuming, of course, that there is anything at all 'after death'.

there must be something more...there must be a place for me after death in living for my God. It cant just be nothing....

Why not? Please, explain to me why there must be something.

we are not meant to live and just die...and thats it.

Please explain what you mean by 'meant'. I take it you mean we have a 'purpose' in life; could you explain this a bit further?

Whats the point of even living then...

To live, of course.
What's the point in living if there's a Heaven? Nothing changes if there is a Heaven, nothing changes if there isn't. So some of us get into Heaven. Big whoop.

whats the point of this universe forming then...I mean its ridiculous...its ridiculous to think its an accident....

Why? Quantum mechanics is all but fact, and it is rooted in the probabalistic nature of reality. Chance is inextricable from reality, my dear.
Do you object to the 'accident' idea of the universe's creation on actual scientific grounds, or merely because it offends you?

if Im just an accident then why should I care what happens to any other accident of a person......

Because you have evolved to care for your kin.

if you dont believe in God then how in the world can you genuinely care for another..

I fail to see the connection. Atheists and other non-monotheists care for each other as much as, and perhaps even more than, their monotheistic neighbours.

if there is no reason for it.....when we are born it is put in us to care and love one another because those are the teachings and desires God put in our hearts...how in the world could a combulsion in space put love and compassion in a human heart.....????

Evolution. We have evolved to care for our kin.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Agreed. However, noone has made the claim that God does not exist. We have challanged the claim that God does exist, but no false dichotomy has been set up.


I disagree. The onus is only and always placed on those making a claim. There is no onus on those who challange that claim.

That said, the onus is placed on those who say "There is no God" as a challange to "There is a God": it is a claim unto itself.


I don't think anyone has claimed that God does not exist. So while the onus is anyone making such a claim, it is currently only on the theists.

Err, have you read the title of the thread lately? The whole point of it is discuss the claim "there is no God". Similarly, Navyguy was responding to a specific claim of Thomas', that "If we can't prove God exists that means we can't prove those Gospels are factual. So the case for atheism is really strong in that sense". ie, a claim that the inconclusivity of the situation establishes God's nonexistence as the prima facie condition, a claim that clearly requires additional support.

I probably wouldn't participate in a straight-out Christian apologetics thread, I find them dull and counterproductive. But I do like to point out flaws in reasoning when people are arguing from reason, or for instance flaws in scriptural interpretation when someone is arguing from scripture. It keeps the dialogue flowing to address sources of knowledge and validation, and that is always good.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Err, have you read the title of the thread lately? The whole point of it is discuss the claim "there is no God".

Initially, sure. But this thread is 23 pages / ~230 posts long. The topic has somewhat shifted.

Similarly, Navyguy was responding to a specific claim of Thomas', that "If we can't prove God exists that means we can't prove those Gospels are factual. So the case for atheism is really strong in that sense". ie, a claim that the inconclusivity of the situation establishes God's nonexistence as the prima facie condition, a claim that clearly requires additional support.

I disagree. I believe Thomas' statement was to justify the weak atheist's position, or rather, to counter certain theistic claims.

 

[LovesEnduringPromise]

Consider an entity that isn't God, but is sufficiently powerful to convince you that it is. What is stopping your 'knowledge' of God's existance being fabricated by a deceptive entity?


Indeed. But I am talking about the nature of your 'knowledge'. You say you know God exists. I am quizzing you about this 'knowledge'.


How do you know? More importantly, how do you know that the thing you 'know' exists is actually God, and not some deciever?


How so? Knowing something exists is a tad different from knowing what it wants you to do.
Not to mention the question of why an entity as phenominal as God would care what humans do; after all, we are just water encased in a protien shell. Nothing more.


Is this knowledge the same as the knowledge that God exists?


Why? I won't bother asking how you know this, but I wonder if you can explain to me why it is better to believe.



No. But more to the point, will you regret the choice not to be Hindu if, when you die, you come face-to-face with Vishnu, Shiva, and all the rest?

This question is very important. Please answer it, LEP.


Why? OK, the Judaeo-Christian God may not exist, but what about Allah? He's gonna be mighty рissеd that you didn't pray to him five times a day.


Do explain.


Law? What law?


Assuming, of course, that there is anything at all 'after death'.


Why not? Please, explain to me why there must be something.


Please explain what you mean by 'meant'. I take it you mean we have a 'purpose' in life; could you explain this a bit further?


To live, of course.
What's the point in living if there's a Heaven? Nothing changes if there is a Heaven, nothing changes if there isn't. So some of us get into Heaven. Big whoop.


Why? Quantum mechanics is all but fact, and it is rooted in the probabalistic nature of reality. Chance is inextricable from reality, my dear.
Do you object to the 'accident' idea of the universe's creation on actual scientific grounds, or merely because it offends you?


Because you have evolved to care for your kin.


I fail to see the connection. Atheists and other non-monotheists care for each other as much as, and perhaps even more than, their monotheistic neighbours.



Evolution. We have evolved to care for our kin.

The deceiver is the one who has the ones who do not believe. The one who believes has God.
I am living the way God wants me to because his word shows me how to live. He teaches me in my trials and tribulations how to live for him, to glorify him and his kingdom.
Okay, it is better to believe because in the end we will see that there is a God, and if I didnt believe then I will have to be separted from the one who created me. I will be in a place(hell) of lonliness and despair.
I KNOW that I have the truth. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He who follows him will have eternal life. SO therefor Hindui maybe exsisted in a life, but there after he will have to face the same God I face on judgement day. Jesus died for our sins, the prophecy was fufilled....how can you not know that that goes bac dozens of years...the prophetic books....the teachings of Jesus Christ himself.
The LAW here on earth. Earthly laws...like speeding, littering....
There must be something because we are not meant to just BE here for nothing. Like I said at birth our hearts are filled with love, a baby needs love we can see that, but why do we have to love if there is nothign afterwards...what is the point of love if there is no God...if there is nothing that our love is for or provided from?
But you know I have chose to stop responding to you. I have an understanding that your heart is hardened. That there is no way into it. that the love of the Lord cannot shine through.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The deceiver is the one who has the ones who do not believe. The one who believes has God.

How can you know this without resorting to circular logic?

I am living the way God wants me to because his word shows me how to live.

And how do you know the Bible (to which I assume you're referring) is the word of God? Because God told you? Sorry, that just raises the question: What if he is a deciever?

He teaches me in my trials and tribulations how to live for him, to glorify him and his kingdom.

Okay, it is better to believe because in the end we will see that there is a God, and if I didnt believe then I will have to be separted from the one who created me. I will be in a place(hell) of lonliness and despair.

But this isn't knowledge ("I know it's better to believe that not believe"), this is a belief in and of itself! If the belief is wrong, then... you're wrong.

I KNOW that I have the truth.

HOW?

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He who follows him will have eternal life. SO therefor Hindui maybe exsisted in a life, but there after he will have to face the same God I face on judgement day.

You misunderstood the question. I was highlighting the fallacy of Pascal's Wager:

1. If the Judaeo-Christian God exists...
   1. Then my belief in him is rewarded when I die.
      
   2. Then my disbelief in him is punished when I die.
      
2. If the Judaeo-Christian God doesn't exist...
   1. Then I cease to exist when I die.

You are saying that we should believe in God on the off-chance that God exists: at least that way we've covered our backs.

However, the fallacy of Pascal's Wager is the false dichotomy etc that are set up:

• "If God exists... otherwise, God doesn't exist". This is false: the Judaeo-Christian conceptualisation of the afterlife (or lack thereof) is not the only conceptualisation: Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Muslims, etc, all have their own conceptualisations about the after life.
  Basically, the Wager assumes that
• "Therefore, we should believe". This is a flawed conclusion on two fronts:
  • It assumes that simply believing in the Judaeo-Christian God is enough to get into it's Heaven.
  • It assumes the false dichotomy outlined above.

Jesus died for our sins, the prophecy was fufilled....how can you not know that that goes bac dozens of years...the prophetic books....the teachings of Jesus Christ himself.

None of which are verified. Funny how:

• The NT was written at least several decades after Christ is supposed to have died, that they become more embellished with non-Christian mythology over time
• There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus by the major historians of the time.

The LAW here on earth. Earthly laws...like speeding, littering....

So human law dictates morality? Do you then condone the adoption of Sharia in Islamic countries?

There must be something because we are not meant to just BE here for nothing.

What makes you think this?

Like I said at birth our hearts are filled with love, a baby needs love we can see that, but why do we have to love if there is nothign afterwards...what is the point of love if there is no God...if there is nothing that our love is for or provided from?

Love isn't a physical thing. It's an abstract emotion caused by neuro-endocrinological surges.

But you know I have chose to stop responding to you.

A pity.

I have an understanding that your heart is hardened. That there is no way into it.

On the contrary, I will believe if you give me a reason to. As it happens, I see no reason to believe in your God, so... I don't.

that the love of the Lord cannot shine through.

A new twist, I'll give you that.

 

[Crujir]

Once again its people like you who are attempting to destroy peoples' hope. For some, God is the only hope they have left, and the only thing keeping them alive. And YOU want to destroy that by trying to "prove" (Which you can't) that God doesn't exist.

I say you are hypocrites. You speak of morality, yet you have no consideration for what was just said above. I will say no more.

Once again; whether you as an individual believe in it or not, you shouldn't be doing something like this that has great potential to harm someone who does believe, yet has weak faith. You sit there all smug talking about what is right and wrong, and yet contradict yourself every time you try to "make a point," because what you are doing could detrimentally affect someone who is weak in faith, or is only holding on by a thread because of God.

You are more now than just faithless; you are destroyers of hope. You are bringing nothing but agony in here because you yourselves are filled with it.

Yes, I do realize this is kind of going against "I will say no more" but I wanted to make sure I brought this to everyone's attention. I'm done here.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Once again; whether you as an individual believe in it or not, you shouldn't be doing something like this that has great potential to harm someone who does believe, yet has weak faith.

Why not? We do not force them to come to this forum. We simply criticise the beliefs that they present.

You sit there all smug talking about what is right and wrong, and yet contradict yourself every time you try to "make a point," because what you are doing could detrimentally affect someone who is weak in faith, or is only holding on by a thread because of God.

How is that hypocritical?

You are more now than just faithless; you are destroyers of hope. You are bringing nothing but agony in here because you yourselves are filled with it.

A minute ago we were smug, and now we're filled with agony?

I'm done here.

Is that the same kind of 'done' as in 'I have no more to say'?

 

[phsyxx]

Why not? We do not force them to come to this forum. We simply criticise the beliefs that they present.


How is that hypocritical?


A minute ago we were smug, and now we're filled with agony?


Is that the same kind of 'done' as in 'I have no more to say'?

Yeah, it probably is the same kind of "done", as in "I want people to notice that I've said that and ask why, because they are really interested in me being here and if I go everybody will mourn my loss."

Well here this - go get a big bucket of water.
Splash around in it, stick your head in it and blow bubbles -
do whatever you want.
But pay attention to what happens after you leave the water for a while.

Your presence is felt while you are making it felt - but truly, once gone - you didn't change anything.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Yeah, it probably is the same kind of "done", as in "I want people to notice that I've said that and ask why, because they are really interested in me being here and if I go everybody will mourn my loss."

Well here this - go get a big bucket of water.
Splash around in it, stick your head in it and blow bubbles -
do whatever you want.
But pay attention to what happens after you leave the water for a while.

Your presence is felt while you are making it felt - but truly, once gone - you didn't change anything.

That analogy is ridiculous. I can think of a number of ways that the bucket of water was changed by the interaction, as well as the actor.

 

[jamiel]

None of which are verified. Funny how:

• The NT was written at least several decades after Christ is supposed to have died, that they become more embellished with non-Christian mythology over time
• There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus by the major historians of the time.

Even several decades after Jesus was crucified it is still remarkable I think all things considered. What He said and did was finally written down and not based only on oral tradition. Too soon for myth-making.

Jerusalem was also destoryed in 70AD and the diaspora followed. So many of those records would likely be gone. Who would even care to extensively document at the time about a rabbi who associated with the poor, charged and claimed to be the Son of God anyway? It wasn't until afterwards that people (some people) eventually "got it". Those of the establishment who were literate (which couldn't have been many people) sure didn't, who didn't exactly care for what Jesus did or had to say.


God Bless.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Even several decades after Jesus was crucified it is still remarkable I think all things considered. What He said and did was finally written down and not based only on oral tradition. Too soon for myth-making.

Too soon? My dear, myths were made about St. Nick a few months after his famous act.

Jerusalem was also destoryed in 70AD and the diaspora followed. So many of those records would likely be gone. Who would even care to extensively document at the time about a rabbi who associated with the poor, charged and claimed to be the Son of God anyway?

The Romans. They were meticulous in their records, and we have recovered the majority of documents from that period and the surrounding periods. Oddly enough, there is no mention of a man named Jesus.

It wasn't until afterwards that people (some people) eventually "got it". Those of the establishment who were literate (which couldn't have been many people) sure didn't, who didn't exactly care for what Jesus did or had to say.

Yes, because it's not like Christianity was made state religion or anything...

 

[DailyBlessings]

The Romans. They were meticulous in their records, and we have recovered the majority of documents from that period and the surrounding periods.

This at least is a bold-faced lie, unless you speak from lack of knowledge. The only documents we have from Rome are scattered bits and pieces that were considered important enough to be squirreled away in monasteries through the dark ages, barely a sampling. Don't get me wrong, they saved a lot of things, but the corpus is not even remotely close to "everything". Even if people were actively trying to save a "majority of documents" in any given period of history, the odds against their managing to do so would be astronomical. For instance, a lot of practical everyday documents and communications of the Roman Empire were written on wooden tablets, only a few of which out of presumably millions have withstood the march of time, simply because of natural corrosion. And trust me, the confusion of the 1st century in the Eastern empire is under represented in the historical record: we have next to nothing from the great Greek schools in that time period, for instance.

Yes, because it's not like Christianity was made state religion or anything...

Almost four centuries later...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This at least is a bold-faced lie, unless you speak from lack of knowledge.

This article holds a comprehensive list of latin literature from the time of the Roman Republic & Empire, along with further lists in the external links.
This page is a list of texts by author. The list by title is still being compilled.

I'll admit, my wording was flawed: the majority of documents is not likely to have been recovered, given the sheer volume of documentation that would have been produced. The literature from the Roman historians and other record-keepers of the time is extensive, and the absence of Jesus is quite telling.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

And I suppose Evolution is all the more probable, explainable, and likely to have happened than the miracles found in the Bible? If God had to fit within His creation and follow the laws of nature that really wouldn't say anything about Him would it? That's why miracles are called super-natural. How do you explain away healings that happen to people today that can't be explained medically and things like that?

Those healings don't happen. Or if they do, it isn't because of prayer.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189691,00.html

 

[DailyBlessings]

This article holds a comprehensive list of latin literature from the time of the Roman Republic & Empire, along with further lists in the external links.
This page is a list of texts by author. The list by title is still being compilled.

I'll admit, my wording was flawed: the majority of documents is not likely to have been recovered, given the sheer volume of documentation that would have been produced. The literature from the Roman historians and other record-keepers of the time is extensive, and the absence of Jesus is quite telling.

No, it really isn't. That's the list of everything we have from more than three thousand years of a literate civilization... it's pretty scanty, in fact, and given that most historical documents were intended as propaganda of sorts, they certainly cannot be trusted. I'm not sure exactly what kind of evidence you would accept as "proof" that somebody existed, but whatever your standards are I doubt that you could use them to prove the existence of more than a few hundred people in that entire corpus. We have gospels and letters from a decade of Christ's death, written between people who had actually met him; just how much confirmation do you in fact need? Something written by Jesus himself, signed in triplicate and sealed with blood?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, it really isn't. That's the list of everything we have from more than three thousand years of a literate civilization... it's pretty scanty, in fact, and given that most historical documents were intended as propaganda of sorts, they certainly cannot be trusted.

Do explain how you know this. Did a historian of the time write it? But wait, you can't trust such accounts!
That's the great thing about conspiracy theories: the absence of evidence is evidence itself!

I'm not sure exactly what kind of evidence you would accept as "proof" that somebody existed, but whatever your standards are I doubt that you could use them to prove the existence of more than a few hundred people in that entire corpus.

I'll believe a historical figure existed if there are documents claiming said persons existance that are verifiable, independant, and contemporary. Vague references to 'the Christos' written several decades, or even centuries, after the alleged events is hardly compelling.

We have gospels and letters from a decade of Christ's death, written between people who had actually met him; just how much confirmation do you in fact need?

Something verifiable. The Magna Carta? That I'll believe, since it's referenced in countless independant & contemporary documents. The events depicted in the Gospels? There are no such documents verifying the relevant information. Indeed, the events therein look exactly as if they've been lifted straight from previous Sun-God faiths (Mithraism, the Egyptian pantheon, etc).

Something written by Jesus himself, signed in triplicate and sealed with blood?

It wouldn't hurt.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

It is so obvious, no son of God invaded our planet in the first century AD. I tell you why, because the people living in Jerusalem and the surronding area would not convert to christianity. Now please tell me, do you seriously believe Billy Graham is better at evangelizing people than Jesus Christ himself even when he could perform miracles?

Remember all the times in the bible and it says "the people still wouldn't believe?" The fact is, they would have believed. Those pagans and jewish people who died in the first century AD are our wittnesses that the Gospels did not really happen. Those people would have converted, and christianity would have spread like wild fire over the whole roman empire right in the first century. Right in the first three years Jesus was supposedly doing his ministry. Had this really had happen.

If you could bring back to life the roman soldiers and the jewish people that lived in thirty to thirty three AD, they would say look; "If anybody came back from the dead or a bunch of cripled people would have started walking or leppers were having their skins healed, we would have known about it, and gladly treat this person who was doing this like a king, and not kill the person." If you could wake up those dead people that is what they would tell you, we can simply look at the fact that they didn't convert to christianity to know that.

They are your witnesses they're reaching beyond the grave to tell you, "please don't believe Billy Graham could convert people better than God."

The romans used to feed christians to lions, think about it, it was an oppressed cult for over three hundred years.

The evidence is right there look at it.

We are all just sophisticated animals trying to find meaning and significance in the human condition. We don't need the threats of eternal damnation to find that.

 

[NavyGuy7]

It is so obvious, no son of God invaded our planet in the first century AD. I tell you why, because the people living in Jerusalem and the surronding area would not convert to christianity. Now please tell me, do you seriously believe Billy Graham is better at evangelizing people than Jesus Christ himself even when he could perform miracles?

Remember all the times in the bible and it says "the people still wouldn't believe?" The fact is, they would have believed. Those pagans and jewish people who died in the first century AD are our wittnesses that the Gospels did not really happen. Those people would have converted, and christianity would have spread like wild fire over the whole roman empire right in the first century. Right in the first three years Jesus was supposedly doing his ministry. Had this really had happen.

If you could bring back to life the roman soldiers and the jewish people that lived in thirty to thirty three AD, they would say look; "If anybody came back from the dead or a bunch of cripled people would have started walking or leppers were having their skins healed, we would have known about it, and gladly treat this person who was doing this like a king, and not kill the person." If you could wake up those dead people that is what they would tell you, we can simply look at the fact that they didn't convert to christianity to know that.

They are your witnesses they're reaching beyond the grave to tell you, "please don't believe Billy Graham could convert people better than God."

The romans used to feed christians to lions, think about it, it was an oppressed cult for over three hundred years.

The evidence is right there look at it.

We are all just sophisticated animals trying to find meaning and significance in the human condition. We don't need the threats of eternal damnation to find that.

*points finger*
OBJECTION!!!!
I have read this, and I see no evidence. It is merely your opinion. Even if there WERE evidence in this statement, it would be circumstantial, at BEST. You cannot say what is in a man's heart, what leads him to do this or that. Many people were claiming to be the Messiah before Jesus, so you would think that the Jews would have seen Jesus as just another blasphemer. At least the Pharisees did, or many of them. I cannot say who did or did not believe in that group. They killed him to end what they thought was another liar, a blasphemer, a lawbreaker.
All you've provided us with is wishful thinking. And believe me, there were many times when Jesus could have proven beyond a shadow he was who he said he was, and be this king you seem to think he could have become. But he didn't. It would have conflicted with the plan. The plan of salvation. He had to die for our sins, to set all of humanity free.

And here is something I once read. Though it is from a work of fiction (fantasy, in fact), it seems to have truth to it.
"People are stupid. They will believe anything either because they want to, or they fear it may be true."
Yes, I realize this can be used against me. But it has a little truth to it. Human beings are stubborn. They'll believe what they want, if they have the will to keep on that track. Whether it's true or not depends on what they believe, of course.

Nice try, DoubtingThomas, but you're going to need to do significantly better than that. It was fun.

Oh, and FYI... the first century AD started with the DEATH of Jesus, not his birth. So he wouldn't have "invaded" the earth, as you like to say, during that time. He would have already died for our sins.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Do explain how you know this. Did a historian of the time write it? But wait, you can't trust such accounts!
That's the great thing about conspiracy theories: the absence of evidence is evidence itself!


I'll believe a historical figure existed if there are documents claiming said persons existance that are verifiable, independant, and contemporary. Vague references to 'the Christos' written several decades, or even centuries, after the alleged events is hardly compelling.


Something verifiable. The Magna Carta? That I'll believe, since it's referenced in countless independant & contemporary documents. The events depicted in the Gospels? There are no such documents verifying the relevant information. Indeed, the events therein look exactly as if they've been lifted straight from previous Sun-God faiths (Mithraism, the Egyptian pantheon, etc).


It wouldn't hurt.

So who, in the ancient world, actually existed according to your standards? I can't think of anyone. And what is "verifiable" supposed to mean?