What would count as proof of God

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The "story" seems to be that humans are half ghosts and we really do fly around in the sky. But of all those stories that are out there only mine is the one, true, "real" story. Omigosh! I'm convinced!

 

[Harry Bosch]

The complaining about the cookie/goblin analogy is what theists also do with analogies. Time and again I see them turn an analogy that's about epistemology into a matter of ontology; I think because they're ok saying WHAT the beliefs are but don't want to get into WHY the beliefs should seem plausible to anyone.

'Did you get the nature of my items of belief exactly right? Oops, no, nothing in nature is like what I believe so you didn't! How rude!'

Is the imagery in atrib's analogy rudely dismissive of time-honored "personal" beliefs? Let's think on it instead of emoting about it:

The universe is like a cookie if it's a made thing.
And God's like an invisible goblin if he's not visible and is a character found in fantastical stories

Deriving questions from the above in bold, can be misleading and misrepresenting the view of Christianity,... despite often hearing atheists telling us how much they've "read" the whole bible.

By following as according to atheist-apologistic-logic; by having them dictate HOW they "think" theists believe & understand their scriptures, and the cosmic universe in relation to their faith. Naturally these questions may seem difficult to answer (deriving from the above phrasing highlighted in bold).

The obvious point I'm making for this post is: at least meet the theists halfway, so to speak - by getting the story narrative right! Basically as I understand it - no one has seen the Father but the son.. and Jesus was not invisible to humans! Context derived from some examples of the verses below:

Luke 10:21-24
27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

John1: 18
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


John 6:45-46
45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

I'm not exactly sure of your point here. I'd like to hear more. But clearly, Jesus is mostly invisible to most people over the history of the planent. He only appeared to a tiny group in the Mideast for a short period of time before the iphone or printing press. Big Foot is far more visible and convincing than Jesus.

 

[Learner]

You say, “not invisible to humans” as if to imply that the character, Jesus, *is* visible to humans, and is not, to all of us in this discussion, a character in a book of unverified veracity penned by unknown humans thousands of years ago.

To Harry Bosch's post too.

Well, here we can open up a little more on, what one means, some clarity. I WAS talking about those who have witnessed Jesus as existing. According to a majority, if not all Biblical scholars; both secular and theistic believe Jesus existed (seen by people IOW).

You admonish us for failing to “get the story right” when the story is unverified and completely subject to interpretation.

Other Christians can and do admonish YOU for “failing to get the story right,” and here you are trying to imply that this “Jesus” (who, if you get the story right, is “Yeshua,” anyway,) is somehow visible to humans.

No it's about atheists reading it wrong versus how theists read it, in this particular regard.

It’s rather a stretch, on your part.

In other words, for every human who is alive and has been alive for all of history, the gods have been invisible, and the only exception even you can come up with is in a story book written by you don’t know who, after the death of the alleged visible god, without a verified chain of custody.

That’s your story?

It is my story, there abouts but there's a little more to it, than the generic discription.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You say, “not invisible to humans” as if to imply that the character, Jesus, *is* visible to humans, and is not, to all of us in this discussion, a character in a book of unverified veracity penned by unknown humans thousands of years ago.

To Harry Bosch's post too.

Well, here we can open up a little more on, what one means, some clarity. I WAS talking about those who have witnessed Jesus as existing. According to a majority, if not all Biblical cholars; secular and theistic believe Jesus existed (seen by people IOW).

You admonish us for failing to “get the story right” when the story is unverified and completely subject to interpretation.

Other Christians can and do admonish YOU for “failing to get the story right,” and here you are trying to imply that this “Jesus” (who, if you get the story right, is “Yeshua,” anyway,) is somehow visible to humans.

No it's about atheists reading it wrong as opposed to theists in this particular regard.

It’s rather a stretch, on your part.

In other words, for every human who is alive and has been alive for all of history, the gods have been invisible, and the only exception even you can come up with is in a story book written by you don’t know who, after the death of the alleged visible god, without a verified chain of custody.

That’s your story?

It is my story, there abouts but there's a little more to it, than the generic discription.

Learner: I'd be surprised if all biblical scholars believed that Jesus existed. However, it isn't surprising that someone with a belief devotes their life at validating their beliefs and becoming a "scholar" in the subject. But I'm curious about your beliefs. Correct me if I'm stating your position wrong, but it sounds like you believe in god because some people (in the bible?) have witnessed Jesus as existing?

 

[Learner]

Learner: I'd be surprised if all biblical scholars believed that Jesus existed. However, it isn't surprising that someone with a belief devotes their life at validating their beliefs and becoming a "scholar" in the subject. But I'm curious about your beliefs.

Perhaps not every single one but according to Bart Erhman: pretty much close to ALL of them , as he was refuting the mythicists notion. I suppose the merits of the believing scholar depends on what he or she finds and presents to the world..

Correct me if I'm stating your position wrong, but it sounds like you believe in god because some people (in the bible?) have witnessed Jesus as existing?

You are correct. In short: I have never seen Jesus physically myself but my belief is on the basis of faith as in Trust, and with what I make of the world (which also leads me to asks questions about what they say about the world). Not wanting to go over old ground repeating myself, but the bible is highly emphasized as a book of witnessing and testimonies. And the word faith with some variation meaningsm is ALL included in the bible depending on the scenario.. The high emphasis on truth - telling the truth, and the consequences by doing the opposite i.e. telling lies and being false witnesses etc.. is punishable.

The belief and understanding of 'The fear of God, judgement & hell,' reveals in my opinion, a psychological mindset, writing down truthfully, what they (the authors who were intelligent people), say they've have seen and heard. The narrative idea of course, will have it's opposing arguments or debates made against... like "they made it up," or "Jesus never existed," or "a number of people were dellusional at the same time when seeing miracles," and so on. Ongoing untill apparently, one of these arguments 'nips it in the bud' ending the Jesus belief, once and for all.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Learner: I'd be surprised if all biblical scholars believed that Jesus existed. However, it isn't surprising that someone with a belief devotes their life at validating their beliefs and becoming a "scholar" in the subject. But I'm curious about your beliefs.

Perhaps not every single one but according to Bart Erhman: pretty much close to ALL of them , as he was refuting the mythicists notion. I suppose the merits of the believing scholar depends on what he or she finds and presents to the world..

Correct me if I'm stating your position wrong, but it sounds like you believe in god because some people (in the bible?) have witnessed Jesus as existing?

You are correct. In short: I have never seen Jesus physically myself but my belief is on the basis of faith as in Trust, and with what I make of the world (which also leads me to asks questions about what they say about the world). Not wanting to go over old ground repeating myself, but the bible is highly emphasized as a book of witnessing and testimonies. And the word faith with some variation meaningsm is ALL included in the bible depending on the scenario.. The high emphasis on truth - telling the truth, and the consequences by doing the opposite i.e. telling lies and being false witnesses etc.. is punishable.

The belief and 'The fear of God & hell' understanding, reveals in my opinion, a psychological state, writing down truthfully, what they (the authors) who were intelligent people, say they've have seen of heard, which of course, with this idea, will have opposing arguments or debates made against - like "they made it up," or "Jesus never existed," or "a number of people were dellusional at the same time," and so on.

Well, I don't want to strawman you. So please tell me if my interpretation of your beliefs are incorrect. But you believe that the bible is correct because the bible is "emphasized" as a book of witnessing and testimonies? Who is doing this emphasizing? If the writers of the Koran were convinced that the Koran was a book of witnessing and testimony (I'm not an expert on the Koran!); would you then assume that the Koran is "true"?

 

[Learner]

Well, I don't want to strawman you. So please tell me if my interpretation of your beliefs are incorrect. But you believe that the bible is correct because the bible is "emphasized" as a book of witnessing and testimonies? Who is doing this emphasizing? If the writers of the Koran were convinced that the Koran was a book of witnessing and testimony (I'm not an expert on the Koran!); would you then assume that the Koran is "true"?

The emphasis is throughout the bible. But you could take the Commandments as an obvious example.

I'm not much on the Koran myself however, I do know they don't believe Jesus is the Son of God or trinity and they believe He wasn't crucified either.

Interestingly They do believe He is the Messiah, and He was concieved without a human father, and He will return.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, I don't want to strawman you. So please tell me if my interpretation of your beliefs are incorrect. But you believe that the bible is correct because the bible is "emphasized" as a book of witnessing and testimonies? Who is doing this emphasizing? If the writers of the Koran were convinced that the Koran was a book of witnessing and testimony (I'm not an expert on the Koran!); would you then assume that the Koran is "true"?

The emphasis is throughout the bible. But you could take the Commandments as an obvious example.

I'm not much on the Koran myself however, I do know they don't believe Jesus is the Son of God or trinity and they believe He wasn't crucified either.

Interestingly They believe He is the Messiah and was concieved without a human father, and He will return.

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

 

[Learner]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

Why are you confused? Well firstly... the bible was written well before the Koran. Witnesses (plural) are many in the bible. Witness singular, by Mohammed in the Koran has less weight. The old argument against the bible: that there were many writers etc.. strangely enough is actually better than one single witness, so to speak, just like lonesome Joseph Smith.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

Why are you confused? Well firstly... the bible was written well before the Koran. Witnesses (plural) are many in the bible. Witness singular, by Mohammed in the Koran has less weight. The old argument against the bible: that there were many writers etc.. strangely enough is actually better than one single witness, so to speak, just like lonesome Joseph Smith.

I gotcha now. So, you're saying that the bible is more accurate because it is older and has more witnesses. However, there are many religious books that are older than the bible:

10 Oldest Religious Texts in The World - Oldest.org

Discover the 10 Oldest Religious Texts in The World here. Prepare to be transported into a rich & fascinating history on the oldest religious texts that exist.

www.oldest.org

I will do some research to see if these books have "witnessing" in them.

 

[Learner]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

Why are you confused? Well firstly... the bible was written well before the Koran. Witnesses (plural) are many in the bible. Witness singular, by Mohammed in the Koran has less weight. The old argument against the bible: that there were many writers etc.. strangely enough is actually better than one single witness, so to speak, just like lonesome Joseph Smith.

I gotcha now. So, you're saying that the bible is more accurate because it is older and has more witnesses. However, there are many religious books that are older than the bible:

I approached it from the perspective that even though Islam is taught to believe in the Torah, the Prophets and bible (some parts believed corrupted). The bible mentioned prophets first. out of the Abrahamic faiths. I suppose "technically," Islam is another biblical denomination, considering they acknowledge Jesus , Moses and other prophets..

10 Oldest Religious Texts in The World - Oldest.org

Discover the 10 Oldest Religious Texts in The World here. Prepare to be transported into a rich & fascinating history on the oldest religious texts that exist.

www.oldest.org

I will do some research to see if these books have "witnessing" in them.

Nice one Harry, good thing with these discussions is they encourage us to do research, for the curiosity and not just for debates| (I need to do some research myself).

 

[blastula]

You are correct. In short: I have never seen Jesus physically myself

Do you believe he talks to you?

 

[abaddon]

The universe is like a cookie if it's a made thing.

And God's like an invisible goblin if he's not visible and is a character found in fantastical stories

Deriving questions from the above in bold, can be misleading and misrepresenting ...

It's not misleading because it lead to an answer.

Wanting it to reflect your "narrative" in all details misses the point. It's an atheist telling his perspective, to invite discussion about what the evidence is. So your response about what your evidence is IS the reasonable kind of response. That's how discussing what the disagreements are happens.

 

[Rhea]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

Why are you confused? Well firstly... the bible was written well before the Koran. Witnesses (plural) are many in the bible. Witness singular, by Mohammed in the Koran has less weight. The old argument against the bible: that there were many writers etc.. strangely enough is actually better than one single witness, so to speak, just like lonesome Joseph Smith.

So are you agreeing with Harry’s effort to reflect your position?
That you believe whatever book is the oldest one with witnesses?

And I have a follow-up question; does this mean that you do not believve the parts of the bible that are written by people who are not witnesses? Like Paul’s stuff, and Revelations? And Genesis?

 

[atrib]

The complaining about the cookie/goblin analogy is what theists also do with analogies. Time and again I see them turn an analogy that's about epistemology into a matter of ontology; I think because they're ok saying WHAT the beliefs are but don't want to get into WHY the beliefs should seem plausible to anyone.

'Did you get the nature of my items of belief exactly right? Oops, no, nothing in nature is like what I believe so you didn't! How rude!'

Is the imagery in atrib's analogy rudely dismissive of time-honored "personal" beliefs? Let's think on it instead of emoting about it:

The universe is like a cookie if it's a made thing.
And God's like an invisible goblin if he's not visible and is a character found in fantastical stories

Deriving questions from the above in bold, can be misleading and misrepresenting the view of Christianity,... despite often hearing atheists telling us how much they've "read" the whole bible.

By following as according to atheist-apologistic-logic; by having them dictate HOW they "think" theists believe & understand their scriptures, and the cosmic universe in relation to their faith. Naturally these questions may seem difficult to answer (deriving from the above phrasing highlighted in bold).

The obvious point I'm making for this post is: at least meet the theists halfway, so to speak - by getting the story narrative right! Basically as I understand it - no one has seen the Father but the son.. and Jesus was not invisible to humans! Context derived from some examples of the verses below:

The narrative is that God created humans broken; we are all broken from birth because God made us that way. But he wanted us to overcome our broken nature and stop sinning, or we would be sent to Hell. But he also gave humans a get-out-of-jail-free card; he cloned himself in human form and had this clone brutally sacrificed to himself so he could allow himself to forgive the broken humans who bowed down before this clone and called it Master. Did I get the narrative right?

The narrative doesn't make any sense. Why would an emotionally and technologically sophisticated god want or need to be worshiped? Why would this god need human sacrifice to be appeased, and the aroma of burning flesh to be soothed? If this god loves it's creation, why does it make us suffer? Why does this god never show itself to the humans he created and apparently loves?

and Jesus was not invisible to humans!

Not in any way that you can demonstrate. For all we know, Jesus is a fictional character invented by humans, just like all the other gods we have created.

 

[atrib]

You say, “not invisible to humans” as if to imply that the character, Jesus, *is* visible to humans, and is not, to all of us in this discussion, a character in a book of unverified veracity penned by unknown humans thousands of years ago.

To Harry Bosch's post too.

Well, here we can open up a little more on, what one means, some clarity. I WAS talking about those who have witnessed Jesus as existing. According to a majority, if not all Biblical scholars; both secular and theistic believe Jesus existed (seen by people IOW).

There were probably hundreds of people named Yeshua in that part of the world 2,000 years ago. Some of them may have been preachers and leaders of a small cult. That doesn't mean any of them were clones of a god. That doesn't mean they performed supernatural acts. That doesn't mean that what they preached about their gods were true.

 

[atrib]

Learner: I'd be surprised if all biblical scholars believed that Jesus existed. However, it isn't surprising that someone with a belief devotes their life at validating their beliefs and becoming a "scholar" in the subject. But I'm curious about your beliefs.

Perhaps not every single one but according to Bart Erhman: pretty much close to ALL of them , as he was refuting the mythicists notion. I suppose the merits of the believing scholar depends on what he or she finds and presents to the world..

Can you cite the book and quote the passage that you reference here please? I have read a few of Erhman's books, and I don't remember him saying that pretty much all historians believe that Jesus was a flesh and blood person.

The belief and understanding of 'The fear of God, judgement & hell,' reveals in my opinion, a psychological mindset, writing down truthfully, what they (the authors who were intelligent people), say they've have seen and heard. The narrative idea of course, will have it's opposing arguments or debates made against... like "they made it up," or "Jesus never existed," or "a number of people were dellusional at the same time when seeing miracles," and so on. Ongoing untill apparently, one of these arguments 'nips it in the bud' ending the Jesus belief, once and for all.

I don't have a problem believing that someone named Jesus existed, and he was a preacher. What I don't believe is that he rose up from the dead as a zombie and flew off into space. Those stories are almost certainly fabrications, beyond any reasonable standard of doubt. For reasons that have been explained to you previously.

The idea is not to "nip the Jesus beliefs". I don't give a fuck what you believe. The idea is to challenge the misinformation and outright lies that many theists resort to to defend their faith.

 

[atrib]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

Why are you confused? Well firstly... the bible was written well before the Koran. Witnesses (plural) are many in the bible. Witness singular, by Mohammed in the Koran has less weight. The old argument against the bible: that there were many writers etc.. strangely enough is actually better than one single witness, so to speak, just like lonesome Joseph Smith.

So are you agreeing with Harry’s effort to reflect your position?
That you believe whatever book is the oldest one with witnesses?

And I have a follow-up question; does this mean that you do not believve the parts of the bible that are written by people who are not witnesses? Like Paul’s stuff, and Revelations? And Genesis?

In another place, Learner has claimed that only the parts of the Bible that are direct quotations of what Jesus said should be considered true. Everything else is questionable.

 

[Elixir]

I think it would be hard to make reasonable conclusions about The Cookie, especially as it no longer exists and I have nothing at all to rationally compare it to.

Prove it no longer exists!

 

[atrib]

I think it would be hard to make reasonable conclusions about The Cookie, especially as it no longer exists and I have nothing at all to rationally compare it to.

Prove it no longer exists!

Politesse said that, not me. The quote markers are broken in your post.