"God is self-existent"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(07-02-2015 07:09 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(06-02-2015 12:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  For those people fortunate enough to encounter God then not reject Him, we don't need sophistry or anecdotes to know Him. Anyone who has Jesus knows the Father as well. I'm telling you about God, a friend, constant help and life guide.

I have no more rejected your god than I've rejected any other god. I cannot reject something that does not exist.

(06-02-2015 12:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Many commentators including Christian professors and attorneys-at-law have said we can document Jesus as a legal person, too...

That's interesting as there's still a pretty fierce debate over whether he even existed at all, regardless of any religious claims.

(06-02-2015 12:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ... but ultimately your response to fundamental questions of objective existence is "but it's self-evident". Why is it objective existence is under question? Because in this very thread is talk of brains in a jar and matrices.

Now you're lying. I have never said my existence is self-evident. That's a terrible argument. My existence is well-suggested through good evidence, evidence that doesn't require word play, conditions, bunk philosophy, or presupposition. My quarter analogy is very relevant. When a real point of reference doesn't exist, you cannot have consistent evidence. At the end of the day, I really don't care if I exist or not; the experience is what it is. But at least the evidence of my existence is far more consistent than that of any god. Besides, YOU CAN'T KNOW (that's important, right???). You have no idea if the properties of the universe change beyond what we can observe from Earth. So anything goes, really. Unless... you'd like to admit there are other tools for attempting to determine what's reasonable and what isn't. It sounds like you don't. 100% rule it is, then.

(06-02-2015 12:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Thus, you and any other atheist who chooses to do so is being an intolerant bully when a person says God is self-existent in their knowledge and you give them grief. And if you really don't know that it's more reasonable for God to exist than a planet made of pudding (really, you don't know that there are a near-infinite number of heavenly bodies but they tend to adhere best when they are certain elements in composition?)...

Spare me the bully shit. I won't be swallowing someone else's bullshit just to be nice. "More reasonable" is very subjective; I'll go ahead and make an assertion, then. A god making a baby to be sacrificed so he can forgive his creations is not more probable than the existence of planet pudding.

I am not intolerant. I demand evidence. Not crafty sentences, not "interpretations," not personal anecdotes or assertions... evidence. See, the problem with your "you can't know" viewpoint is that it swings both ways. So either we ALL "can't know," (which negates all of your evidence) or we can all admit there are other tools beyond "self-evident" for making a reasonable determination of what is true and what is not. Take your pick. Either way, it strangely remains easier to prove the existence of a tree than the existence of a god.

Please let me correct you on one point—“There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

My other point re: self-evident evidence stands now, also, and again, based on your statements including this one from your last post: "When a real point of reference doesn't exist, you cannot have consistent evidence." This statement of yours demands that if you personally "don't care" whether it is self-evident that anything exists that Christians may safely claim it is self-evident that Jesus is God. Again, I sense your passion in this area, just not a firm consistency in logic. Your offer of "I can prove through documentary evidence that I exist although I cannot prove the documents exist" is not solving the issue.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 10:49 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2015 10:56 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: "God is self-existent"
@ Q http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid733139

(07-02-2015 09:31 PM)‘Full Circle Wrote:  Cite one scientific paper that somewhere in it credits scripture as a source. You claim there are many, cite one you lying, ignorant, disingenuous, pompous, misguided, mendacious, duplicitous, 3rd person talking woo-peddler.

One.

One peer-reviewed paper crediting scripture as a source of new understanding.

I swear I will dog you all over this forum until you either provide one, in which case I will eat my words, or you retract your unsupported assertion.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 09:53 PM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2015 07:31 AM by guitar_nut.)
RE: "God is self-existent"
(09-02-2015 10:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Please let me correct you on one point—“There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Quote:There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels. While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.

Whoops...

Quote:Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that [b]while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Among two of the three quoted sources:
Robert E. Van Voorst is a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, in Holland, Michigan.
John Dickson is an Australian writer, historian, minister and Honorary Fellow in the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University. He is co-founder and director of the Centre for Public Christianity.

Unbiased, I'm sure. The fact that only a few sources are even quoted, and that two of the three were theists, compels me to disregard this entire idea. So, to summarize:

1. Nobody's really sure of the details;
2. Not all scholars agree (well, three 'sources' claim they do), although "somebody" named Jesus probably lived back then;
3. Two of the three sources on the "near unanimity" quote are theists;

Weak sauce.

(09-02-2015 10:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  My other point re: self-evident evidence stands now, also, and again, based on your statements including this one from your last post: "When a real point of reference doesn't exist, you cannot have consistent evidence." This statement of yours demands that if you personally "don't care" whether it is self-evident that anything exists that Christians may safely claim it is self-evident that Jesus is God. Again, I sense your passion in this area, just not a firm consistency in logic. Your offer of "I can prove through documentary evidence that I exist although I cannot prove the documents exist" is not solving the issue.

"Christians may safely claim it is self-evident that Jesus is God."
Go for it. I will safely dismiss it as BS. As I said before, self-evident is a terrible argument.

"Your offer of "I can prove..."
Liar. I made no such offer. I can offer evidence; I cannot prove. Nobody can prove anything with 100% certainty. That's twice, or maybe three times, that you've now put words in my mouth. By all means continue. I truly enjoy, on a forum where every typed line is saved, someone claiming I said something I didn't. You discredit your argument through pure dishonesty, with no effort needed on my part.

Either you only accept 100% proof, in which case all arguments are invalid, or you admit that there are other methods, beyond "self-evident", that we can use to make reasonable assumptions about reality. I can offer more evidence of a tree, leading to a reasonable conclusion that the tree exists, than you can of your god. A separate person who has never met me can offer a similar set of evidence. Yet no two Christians from separate regions can make a consistent description of their god, religion, etc. Maybe that's because... no two imaginations are alike.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like guitar_nut's post
09-02-2015, 09:53 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
They're moving the goalposts. a.k.a. special pleading.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(09-02-2015 10:49 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  @ Q http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid733139

(07-02-2015 09:31 PM)‘Full Circle Wrote:  Cite one scientific paper that somewhere in it credits scripture as a source. You claim there are many, cite one you lying, ignorant, disingenuous, pompous, misguided, mendacious, duplicitous, 3rd person talking woo-peddler.

One.

One peer-reviewed paper crediting scripture as a source of new understanding.

I swear I will dog you all over this forum until you either provide one, in which case I will eat my words, or you retract your unsupported assertion.

Gladly--please quote the post where I said there are peer-reviewed papers crediting scripture as a source of new understanding, since I've acknowledged elsewhere that such would be excluded de facto from the scientific process.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 09:12 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(09-02-2015 09:53 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 10:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Please let me correct you on one point—“There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Quote:There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically, although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels. While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.

Whoops...

Quote:Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that [b]while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Among two of the three quoted sources:
Robert E. Van Voorst is a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, in Holland, Michigan.
John Dickson is an Australian writer, historian, minister and Honorary Fellow in the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University. He is co-founder and director of the Centre for Public Christianity.

Unbiased, I'm sure. The fact that only a few sources are even quoted, and that two of the three were theists, compels me to disregard this entire idea. So, to summarize:

1. Nobody's really sure of the details;
2. Not all scholars agree (well, three 'sources' claim they do), although "somebody" named Jesus probably lived back then;
3. Two of the three sources on the "near unanimity" quote are theists;

Weak sauce.

(09-02-2015 10:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  My other point re: self-evident evidence stands now, also, and again, based on your statements including this one from your last post: "When a real point of reference doesn't exist, you cannot have consistent evidence." This statement of yours demands that if you personally "don't care" whether it is self-evident that anything exists that Christians may safely claim it is self-evident that Jesus is God. Again, I sense your passion in this area, just not a firm consistency in logic. Your offer of "I can prove through documentary evidence that I exist although I cannot prove the documents exist" is not solving the issue.

"Christians may safely claim it is self-evident that Jesus is God."
Go for it. I will safely dismiss it as BS. As I said before, self-evident is a terrible argument.

"Your offer of "I can prove..."
Liar. I made no such offer. I can offer evidence; I cannot prove. Nobody can prove anything with 100% certainty. That's twice, or maybe three times, that you've now put words in my mouth. By all means continue. I truly enjoy, on a forum where every typed line is saved, someone claiming I said something I didn't. You discredit your argument through pure dishonesty, with no effort needed on my part.

Either you only accept 100% proof, in which case all arguments are invalid, or you admit that there are other methods, beyond "self-evident", that we can use to make reasonable assumptions about reality. I can offer more evidence of a tree, leading to a reasonable conclusion that the tree exists, than you can of your god. A separate person who has never met me can offer a similar set of evidence. Yet no two Christians from separate regions can make a consistent description of their god, religion, etc. Maybe that's because... no two imaginations are alike.

First, let me apologize. I'm not wanting to skew your comments by adding the word "prove" out of context or misquoting you. It happens to strengthen my case that you admit you cannot prove such and that you are "apatheist" regarding proof and the nature of existence in general. I was using the word "prove" as my shorthand--if you want to go ahead and say nothing can be either proved or disproved than we're back to "there is a god but you don't trust him because he hasn't shed spiritual illumination on you yet". And I mean what I say, I'm an honest person and not wanting to put words in your mouth as you wrote. That accusation troubles me in part because I want to represent Jesus with integrity, in part because I don't feel you're "winning" this argument and I'm not even sure we are arguing or debating at all, since one can never, ever legitimately deny another's claim that they experience god, love, hate, free will, lack of free will, etc. internally, and to attempt to do so would be madness. We cannot even look at "biological dark matter" in the laboratory because it is too difficult to replicate the inner chemistries and life inside the human gut--you certainly cannot enter my mind, and the mind of millions of others, who have encountered god, and definitively prove or "claim" we do or not know God intimately, privately, personally.

The issue re: the Wikipedia source, however, is far more troubling. That page lists not less than 20 academic sources and over 108 references and quotations. Very few academicians in colleges worldwide deny the historical Jesus, just the supernatural Jesus.

I'm sure you'll disagree but I've already offered the context, that you are thus claiming that multiple sources (not just Q [pun not intended] and the gospel writers but the writers of "Paul", "Peter", "Jude" and etc. AND the apocrypha authors and sources) promulgated multiple texts (27 in the NT alone) designed to tell everyone in Israel (the early writers seem mystified that Gentiles were to receive the gospel) about a person who was not a historical figure at all. Thousands of people in Israel, even some of the Roman authorities, could have easily swept away the claims about a person born in Bethlehem during a census, no less, who lived in Nazareth, preached from Samaria to Jerusalem, had a small genocide in His name when Herod killed the children in the Bethlehem area, etc. and we're just getting warmed up. THIS is in large part why reasonable scholars (read: non-wackos) believe in an historical Jesus.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 09:15 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(10-02-2015 09:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 10:49 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  @ Q http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid733139

Gladly--please quote the post where I said there are peer-reviewed papers crediting scripture as a source of new understanding, since I've acknowledged elsewhere that such would be excluded de facto from the scientific process.

The link is right there in the post. Facepalm
Here it is again: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid730881

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(10-02-2015 09:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  First, let me apologize. I'm not wanting to skew your comments by adding the word "prove" out of context or misquoting you. It happens to strengthen my case that you admit you cannot prove such and that you are "apatheist" regarding proof and the nature of existence in general.

It's not an admission. It's a fact, just as it's a fact you cannot prove god exists. If anything, it makes your claims that you can prove god exists appear contradictory to the argument you're trying to use against me. What you keep ignoring is my question: are there other ways to make a reasonable determination of reality? The difference between us isdon't exist, my experience remains unchanged. I'm not pushing an agenda. You are pushing an agenda, and your very identity and worldview rest on a belief that must be true, no matter any evidence to the contrary. You are emotionally tied to an ideal, and have lost all sense of objectivity.

(10-02-2015 09:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I was using the word "prove" as my shorthand--if you want to go ahead and say nothing can be either proved or disproved than we're back to "there is a god but you don't trust him because he hasn't shed spiritual illumination on you yet".

Or you all have repressed memories but you can't remember them because they're repressed. Or there are ghosts but you can't see them because they are ghosts. Or there is a Zeus but you don't trust him because he hasn't hit you with lightning yet. Or any number of wonderful, unfalsifiable claims. You are welcome to go back there.

(10-02-2015 09:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And I mean what I say, I'm an honest person and not wanting to put words in your mouth as you wrote. That accusation troubles me in part because I want to represent Jesus with integrity, in part because I don't feel you're "winning" this argument and I'm not even sure we are arguing or debating at all, since one can never, ever legitimately deny another's claim that they experience god, love, hate, free will, lack of free will, etc. internally, and to attempt to do so would be madness.

No, but I can legitimately deny that your personal experience is evidence for any sort of claims to reality when it conflicts with the very reality we live in. Since we cannot deny internal claims, and since they cannot be experienced externally by others, and since we cannot reach 100% certainty (in your own words)... are there other ways to make a reasonable determination of reality?

(10-02-2015 09:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  We cannot even look at "biological dark matter" in the laboratory because it is too difficult to replicate the inner chemistries and life inside the human gut--you certainly cannot enter my mind, and the mind of millions of others, who have encountered god, and definitively prove or "claim" we do or not know God intimately, privately, personally.

No more than you can enter the mind of a madman who has encountered any sort of delusion and definitively prove or claim he does not know that delusion. So of what value is this statement?

(10-02-2015 09:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The issue re: the Wikipedia source, however, is far more troubling. That page lists not less than 20 academic sources and over 108 references and quotations. Very few academicians in colleges worldwide deny the historical Jesus, just the supernatural Jesus.

The entire article lists quite a few sources. Your particular claim you referenced had six. Two of them are theists, and one is a former apologist who actually doesn't believe in Jesus' existance. So, two sources and four quotations, two of which are theists and one of which is an apologist turned atheist who does not believe Jesus existed. The only two sources I even trust to be unbiased on that quote are Ehrman and Fox. So, not 20 sources and 108 references. Four-non theist sources (I mistakenly said three). And still a lack of consensus in Europe. So... I remain unconvinced.

(10-02-2015 09:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm sure you'll disagree but I've already offered the context, that you are thus claiming that multiple sources (not just Q [pun not intended] and the gospel writers but the writers of "Paul", "Peter", "Jude" and etc. AND the apocrypha authors and sources) promulgated multiple texts (27 in the NT alone) designed to tell everyone in Israel (the early writers seem mystified that Gentiles were to receive the gospel) about a person who was not a historical figure at all. Thousands of people in Israel, even some of the Roman authorities, could have easily swept away the claims about a person born in Bethlehem during a census, no less, who lived in Nazareth, preached from Samaria to Jerusalem, had a small genocide in His name when Herod killed the children in the Bethlehem area, etc. and we're just getting warmed up. THIS is in large part why reasonable scholars (read: non-wackos) believe in an historical Jesus.

Multiple sources, written by anonymous authors, compiled into a book years after the death of this so-called Jesus, to promote the idea of a religion and salvation. If you're attempting to cite the bible as an unbiased historical document, you may stop immediately.

If a historical Jesus is someday proven, wonderful. I'll be interested in reading about his historical life. Joseph Mormon existed, Mohammad existed, Ron Hubbard existed... I find them all fascinating.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like guitar_nut's post
10-02-2015, 02:55 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
First, just as there are other reasonable ways of reviewing evidence for existence, there are other evidences for God besides personal testimony--prophecy, archaeology, history, etc.

And simply put, there are numerous documents about the historical Jesus, collectively called the NT. I'm glad you like reading about historical persons, too, but the evidence for Jesus's historicity exceeds some of these... which is why in my encounters with academics, none of them discounted the historicity of Jesus.

Your comments re: the academics on that section of the Wikipedia article belie the fact that the entire article IS about the historicity of Jesus! You certainly may take exception to the sentence that tops the article--the other 120 contributors seem fine with it. Your "not convinced" is, if you don't mind my saying so, typical of the atheists who inhabit these forums.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 03:04 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(10-02-2015 02:55 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And simply put, there are numerous documents about the historical Jesus, collectively called the NT.

Because bible says.......Facepalm

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: