How I know there is no God

[DailyBlessings]

Homer, circa 8th Century BCE.
Sophocles 496-407BCE
Socrates 470BCE-399BCE
Plato 428-348 BCE
Aristotle 384- March 7th 322BCE.
Hericlitus 535-475 BCE.

Unless I'm mistaken, none of those documents have been verified in the sense that Wiccan means, or if they are, than some of the early Christian texts are as well. Some of the epistles of Paul were almost certainly written by him, or at least, written by the same person, in the time when Paul was said to have been writing. Homer especially is not very credible- it's been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Homeric texts do not date from the time when he was supposed to have lived, and that those texts have been edited on several occasions. He also, I note, makes a number of verifiably false claims about geography and people, so his document's value as a source of history is not promising. I note that Socrates, like Jesus, is known only by the works of his disciples. In fact, just two of his disciples. In that respect, his existence is rather more suspect than Jesus'. Can you prove that Plato and Xenophon did not make him up out of whole cloth?

You see, the problem I think Wiccan_Child is having is that, since Jesus was SO influential and SO admired by his followers - why didn't he write anything himself?
Why are his remarkably wise words quoted by someone else?

Probably because he was not literate? Anyways, who are you to say that a wise person would want to leave writings behind? Many did not. Socrates is a good example, since he in fact could have written things, but didn't.

Why didn't he have a book of dialogues written as a series of discussions with one or more of his disciples?

People are only real if they use Greek styles of rhetoric? Jesus taught with parables. Many of which are preserved.

And why doesn't he have an exceptionally accurate birth date - like that of Aristotle.
Aristotle was so well known that his death was even marked on the very day - and the students of his school mourned his passing.

Even a cursory study of Jesus' teachings and the early Christian church will explain that one for you. They didn't record or celebrate the birth or death day of anyone, regarding such things as unimportant and distracting from the gospel.

Surely if Jesus were to have gone about the streets of Jerusalem for three whole years - there can't have been that many people back then - surely EVERYONE would have known him?

More than a 500 thousand. And at any rate, I'd say he was pretty notorious, given that the largest (by numbers) religion in the history of the world was formed as a reaction to his teachings.

 

[phsyxx]

I agree with you, physxx. There are two fallacies being circulated here:

1. A false dichotomy: either you believe God exists or you believe God doesn't exist. Clearly there is a third option: neither.
2. Misrepresentation of the burden of proof: the onus lies on the party making the claim, not the party to whom the claim is made.
   As in physxx's judical analogy, no lawyer would claim "Since you can't disprove A, it is reasonable to conclude that A occured".

Yeah - except in China, where of course they do the "guilty until proven innocent" thing - shown to be a completely flawed system by Richard Gere's performance in "Red Corner".

I know the burden of proof thing - that's for pointing it out, I'd just not quite grabbed it from the tip of my tongue.
I think, and I may have already said this, Betrand Russell put it best with his analogy of the teapot.

 

[phsyxx]

I agree with you, physxx. There are two fallacies being circulated here:

1. A false dichotomy: either you believe God exists or you believe God doesn't exist. Clearly there is a third option: neither.
2. Misrepresentation of the burden of proof: the onus lies on the party making the claim, not the party to whom the claim is made.
   As in physxx's judical analogy, no lawyer would claim "Since you can't disprove A, it is reasonable to conclude that A occured".

Yeah - except in China, where of course they do the "guilty until proven innocent" thing - shown to be a completely flawed system by Richard Gere's performance in "Red Corner".

I know the burden of proof thing - that's for pointing it out, I'd just not quite grabbed it from the tip of my tongue.
I think, and I may have already said this, Betrand Russell put it best with his analogy of the teapot.

 

[phsyxx]

d/p

 

[phsyxx]

I think you don't have a firm grasp on how carbon dating works, if you think it can be used effectively on a document. Even if you could, I doubt even a non-religious historian would be happy to see thousand year documents going into the masher.

I think you don't have a firm grasp on what a joke is, if you think everything in life is serious, you're probably not going to enjoy it. I know even religious historians can make jokes.

 

[phsyxx]

Homer especially is not very credible- it's been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Homeric texts do not date from the time when he was supposed to have lived, and that those texts have been edited on several occasions.

Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. Homer is also thought to have been a woman.

He also, I note, makes a number of verifiably false claims about geography and people, so his document's value as a source of history is not promising.

He also, I note, wrote fictional tales about people that didn't actually exist.
Kinda like a Greek Shakespeare.

I note that Socrates, like Jesus, is known only by the works of his disciples. In fact, just two of his disciples. In that respect, his existence is rather more suspect than Jesus'.

True, but as you mention later in your post, unlike the Isralites, the Greeks actually dated and catalogued members of their society.
And, considering Jesus came later - do you not think that there would have been some kind of memorials, or ...perhaps a school of some sort during his lifetime?

I know there are historic locations that Jesus visited etc, but, is there anything that is distinctly Jesus in origin?

Can you prove that Plato and Xenophon did not make him up out of whole cloth?

Oh no, but then again - it's Socrates' teachings that matter, not who he was.

People are only real if they use Greek styles of rhetoric? Jesus taught with parables. Many of which are preserved.

Yes. Again, that is true.
But so are the works of Shakespeare, works acredited to Homer, the works of Sophocles and Euripedes...
but they don't force people to believe that they were divine, in order for their teachings and works to have any merit.
I for one do not believe that Homer actually called upon a pantheon of gods for inspiration when reciting these tales - and I'm sure you don't either.
And that brings up another point.
You say "the writings of Homer have been shown NOT to be dated to when he/she was alive" - that's because they were orally delivered, and written down much later.

Even a cursory study of Jesus' teachings and the early Christian church will explain that one for you.

And a more thorough and in depth look at the New Testament and the life of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels raises aheckofalot more questions.

More than a 500 thousand. And at any rate, I'd say he was pretty notorious, given that the largest (by numbers) religion in the history of the world was formed as a reaction to his teachings.

Right - so where was the Roman reaction to him, considering he went to Pilate, who was one of the most senior officianados in the whole of the Roman army?
Where are the writings of unbelievers that shout and accuse him of being a fool - like so many seemed to do so when he had to carry his cross?

 

[DailyBlessings]

He also, I note, wrote fictional tales about people that didn't actually exist.
Kinda like a Greek Shakespeare.

Homer wouldn't have called his account "fictional." He also wouldn't call it a "history" in the sense that we mean it. It lies somewhere between those concepts, as do the Gospels, though after a different fashion. But despite the fact that his accounting is not accurate, it does depict events that actually happened, and people who existed. Differentiating which things did exist and which did not is a task that textual analysis cannot possibly achieve.

True, but as you mention later in your post, unlike the Isralites, the Greeks actually dated and catalogued members of their society.
And, considering Jesus came later - do you not think that there would have been some kind of memorials, or ...perhaps a school of some sort during his lifetime?

He had disciples in his lifetime, they took on disciples after he dies. So yes, a school did form. The Gospels, written a few decades after the fact, are based on already existing schools and traditions- they must have been well established very soon after the crucifixion in order to have produced something like the book of Mark, which was based on at two other texts now lost and oral traditions. Certainly there are upwards of a few thousand Christians all throughout the empire by the time a century has passed, enough for Rome to consider them a practical threat. As for memorials, once again the early Christian church really wasn't into that kind of thing- for a long time, physical representation of the Christ in any form was strictly forbidden.

I know there are historic locations that Jesus visited etc, but, is there anything that is distinctly Jesus in origin?

Jesus' theology, whatever some may have said, was very different from the other voices in the Ancient Near East.

Oh no, but then again - it's Socrates' teachings that matter, not who he was.

Well, if that's all that matters, why waste time on the ridiculous errand of "proving" that someone did not exist?

Yes. Again, that is true.
But so are the works of Shakespeare, works acredited to Homer, the works of Sophocles and Euripedes...
but they don't force people to believe that they were divine, in order for their teachings and works to have any merit.
I for one do not believe that Homer actually called upon a pantheon of gods for inspiration when reciting these tales - and I'm sure you don't either.
And that brings up another point.
You say "the writings of Homer have been shown NOT to be dated to when he/she was alive" - that's because they were orally delivered, and written down much later.

Like, say... the teachings of Christ?

And a more thorough and in depth look at the New Testament and the life of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels raises aheckofalot more questions.

No argument there. But the question of whether there was, at some point, a Nazarean named Yeshua bin Yosef who got himself executed for bumping heads with the hierarchy, is not really among them.

Right - so where was the Roman reaction to him, considering he went to Pilate, who was one of the most senior officianados in the whole of the Roman army?

I'd say crucifixon is a pretty strong reaction. But why would the Romans feel the need to write anything about Jesus at all? The death of a street prophet with a handful of cultic followers is not that remarkable an occurrence.

Where are the writings of unbelievers that shout and accuse him of being a fool - like so many seemed to do so when he had to carry his cross?

Well, they shouted and accused him of being a fool. Are you suggesting that the rabble of Jerusalem was both literate and motivated enough to write philosophical treatises about every self-proclaimed Messiah that came on the scene? We don't have any documents from 30 AD in Judea, so calling absence of evidence for any particular event is not very convincing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

DB, I'm still waiting for your reply to my post

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

What we are doing now is analyzing a crime scene really, we are trying to figure out if something happened some two thousand years ago. I think we can figure out if the gospels really happened if we look at the evidence carefully.

Why was christianity an oppressed cult for over three hundred years; why were christians being fed to lions, if Jesus was on the Earth and was trying to convince people he was the son of God?

These are good questions.

You see if nothing happened some two thousand years ago we would have absence of evidence. This is what we have, we cannot prove the gospels happened, otherwise we could prove God exists, So we have good reason to doubt that they ever even happened.

We have absence of evidence, and if nothing really happened back then, then that is what you would have. Which is what we have, absence of evidence.

I wouldn't lie about this, God does not exist.

 

[phsyxx]

Homer wouldn't have called his account "fictional." He also wouldn't call it a "history" in the sense that we mean it. It lies somewhere between those concepts, as do the Gospels, though after a different fashion.

Yeah. So what was considered accurate and historical at the time has now been shown to be innaccurate and fictional.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You don't actually believe that Homer was inspired by the greek gods do you?

But despite the fact that his accounting is not accurate, it does depict events that actually happened, and people who existed. Differentiating which things did exist and which did not is a task that textual analysis cannot possibly achieve.

Same with the Bible. Which means that I can't use it as a reliable account of events.

for a long time, physical representation of the Christ in any form was strictly forbidden.

So where did these schools form? And are there locations around Israel where we can still find locations that early Christians were taught in?

Jesus' theology, whatever some may have said, was very different from the other voices in the Ancient Near East.

See...thing is - no it wasn't.
I'm going to edit this post later and quote from the Book of the Dead that originated in Egypt - and you'll hear (read) how similar it is to Christian teachings, even though it predates it by at least 800 years.

Well, if that's all that matters, why waste time on the ridiculous errand of "proving" that someone did not exist?

Because you're telling me that it's NOT Jesus teachings that matter, rather his DIVINITY.
If there wasn't so much emphasis on having to blindly believe in
A)The Historical Jesus
B)The things he did being literally true
C) His divinity

Then I wouldn't mind whether or not you felt that the New Testament was an accurate account of events - rather the emphasis would be on how these teachings can help you reach spiritual maturity.

Like, say... the teachings of Christ?

Like...say...NO.
If you remember - you pointed out to me earlier that the Gospels and the Pharisees were prevalent in Jewish society.
Jesus was a Jew - and he always carried around with him scripture, often depicted in Churches (perhaps the Torah).

This means that there was a lot of reading and writing going on at Jesus' time, and even before it. Meaning that the culture would have been to write down "current events", so as to record them for the state or whatever.

Problem is - the culture of recording these events seems to have completely missed Jesus by at least a generation.
And then it continues on in perfect harmony, with a series of accounts being compiled rapidly, with John taking the majority of his work from the others.

No argument there.

Good. Nice to see that we agree on something.

But the question of whether there was, at some point, a Nazarean named Yeshua bin Yosef who got himself executed for bumping heads with the hierarchy, is not really among them.

Was he actually called that?
I thought that the Angel commanded the Virgin Mary that the child was to be called "Emmanuel". It's there, I can pull it up again for you if you like - I've even highlighted it in my Bible - so if you want me to quote it, I will.

I'd say crucifixon is a pretty strong reaction. But why would the Romans feel the need to write anything about Jesus at all? The death of a street prophet with a handful of cultic followers is not that remarkable an occurrence.

Exactly. So what made Jesus any different?
Oh wait...he was divine.......
Right. Of course. And the other street prophets didn't claim to be any less.

Well, they shouted and accused him of being a fool. Are you suggesting that the rabble of Jerusalem was both literate and motivated enough to write philosophical treatises about every self-proclaimed Messiah that came on the scene? We don't have any documents from 30 AD in Judea, so calling absence of evidence for any particular event is not very convincing.

I think you've used a style of rhetoric there...I'm faintly familiar with the strand of argument you're employing....
By telling me that my position is supposedly impossible by the fact that there are no records of anything happening in Judea at that time - Jesus therefore must have existed and must be divine.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I think you've used a style of rhetoric there...I'm faintly familiar with the strand of argument you're employing....
By telling me that my position is supposedly impossible by the fact that there are no records of anything happening in Judea at that time - Jesus therefore must have existed and must be divine.

I'll try and find time later to come back and address your questions fully, but I'd like to clear something up: I'm not an apologist for the fundamentalist crowd. I don't think you can prove anything, much less that a person exists or that they were God, whatever that might mean. I just heartily dislike it when people make an argument from rationality that isn't actually rational, and claiming that the absence of contemporary accounts somehow casts doubt on someone's existence is complete hogwash.

 

[NavyGuy7]

I'll try and find time later to come back and address your questions fully, but I'd like to clear something up: I'm not an apologist for the fundamentalist crowd. I don't think you can prove anything, much less that a person exists or that they were God, whatever that might mean. I just heartily dislike it when people make an argument from rationality that isn't actually rational, and claiming that the absence of contemporary accounts somehow casts doubt on someone's existence is complete hogwash.

I would say that's pretty good reasoning, Daily. There aren't records of many many people, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. There won't be a record of, say, Joe Shmoe, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist.
Someone would have to have hard concrete proof of someone's nonexistence before I'll listen to such arguments seriously.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would say that's pretty good reasoning, Daily. There aren't records of many many people, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. There won't be a record of, say, Joe Shmoe, but that doesn't mean he didn't exist.
Someone would have to have hard concrete proof of someone's nonexistence before I'll listen to such arguments seriously.

Proof of nonexistance? You realise, of course, that such a thing cannot exist? It is part of the reason why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person challanging it.

That said, the absence of evidence against a person's alleged existance is not evidence for said existance. Think about it: if a person never existed, do you really think that people would go around saying, "My, have you noticed that Bob Jefferson is still nonexistant?" Would governments keep astronomical records of all the people who aren't on the census?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Proof of nonexistance? You realise, of course, that such a thing cannot exist? It is part of the reason why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person challenging it.

So you acknowledge that someone who claims that an individual does not exist has the burden of proving that non-existence, and that it would be impossible to produce that proof? Why then are we wasting time with this?

 

[phsyxx]

I'll try and find time later to come back and address your questions fully, but I'd like to clear something up: I'm not an apologist for the fundamentalist crowd. I don't think you can prove anything, much less that a person exists or that they were God, whatever that might mean. I just heartily dislike it when people make an argument from rationality that isn't actually rational, and claiming that the absence of contemporary accounts somehow casts doubt on someone's existence is complete hogwash.

Oh no, don't get me wrong - I'm not asking for more evidence than you've given me - I find it quite convincing that there was at some point a historical Jesus that lived, it's just I don't believe he has/d all of the qualities attributed to him nowadays.

Not that I want to point the finger or anything, but it was Wiccan_Child that asked for the evidence.
I find historical documents to generally be evidence of something significant happening, merely because they exist.
That the way things were back then. They didn't log everyday events and how much a cup of coffee costs on a piece of paper that you keep in your wallet.

 

[phsyxx]

Proof of nonexistance? You realise, of course, that such a thing cannot exist? It is part of the reason why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person challanging it.

That said, the absence of evidence against a person's alleged existance is not evidence for said existance. Think about it: if a person never existed, do you really think that people would go around saying, "My, have you noticed that Bob Jefferson is still nonexistant?" Would governments keep astronomical records of all the people who aren't on the census?

I think what is being expressed by navyguy, here wiccanchild, is that although as much evidence is being given by Dailyblessings and the forementioned, is that you (and possibly myslelf) are (I am) not satisfied with what is being presented to you (us).

See it like this: you, as a member of a philosophical jury, find God non-existent, stating that there isn't enough evidence (substantial enough) to convict him of existing.
Where as your fellow jury members find him existent. Navyguy and Dailyblessings - they are convinced by what the court of life has presented them, but you are not.

What gets me, as an abstainer, is that I don't see how anyone can come to any conclusion over anything.

The point is, it is beyond historical and empirical evidence for the Bible (specifically the NT) to prove/show that Jesus was indeed God incarnate as flesh.

I would be quite willing to accept a Nestorian compromise (It's belief based on a verse in the Gospel of Luke , I think it's Chapter 22, verse 22 - although I might be mistaken) - that Jesus did indeed exist - but he wasn't divine as the majority of Christians claim.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you acknowledge that someone who claims that an individual does not exist has the burden of proving that non-existence, and that it would be impossible to produce that proof?

Though one could claim that A does not exist, one cannot prove it. They can create plausability arguments and so on, but no proof can be given.

Why then are we wasting time with this?

Because rare is the person who makes the (serious) claim that they know something doesn't exist (in this case, God). The weak atheists, common as they are, do not make such a claim; they instead reserve judgement till evidence is presented one way or the other. It is an important distinction, and the two are all too often conflated.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Dear Daily Blessings,

I think your missing something which I'll explain in a later post, but think about this:

How do you know there wasn't a ten foot green giant running around ancient rome smashing people over the head for a three year period, and then wisked off the planet by a space ship from an alien race who were apprehending an escaped fugative from their planet? How do we know for a fact that never happened apostori how do we know that?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Dear Daily Blessings,

I think your missing something which I'll explain in a later post, but think about this:

How do you know there wasn't a ten foot green giant running around ancient rome smashing people over the head for a three year period, and then wisked off the planet by a space ship from an alien race who were apprehending an escaped fugative from their planet? How do we know for a fact that never happened apostori how do we know that?

You don't. It might be irrational to suppose that it is likely, given the lack of any evidence, but a grave logical error to say that you know it did not.

 

[phsyxx]

You don't. It might be irrational to suppose that it is likely, given the lack of any evidence, but a grave logical error to say that you know it did not.

Yeah. See my earlier posts on this page to see that I think it's more likely for a historical Jesus to have existed rather than the forementioned creature, given the evidence.