Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex · 24-12-2011 12:51am

PDN wrote: »

Oh for heaven's sake, rather than cherrypicking Google results and pretending that constitutes 'the common interpretation', go and look up 'Theophany' in any Bible Dictionary or Theological reference work.

Jacob said, "I have seen God face to face". You can dance around that any way you wish - but you're only going to make yourself look silly.

Groan.

I'm well aware of what theophany is PDN. Do you actually have a response to what I said or do you think I will just be impressed by you throwing out big words :rolleyes:

Jacob fought an angel. That is the interpretation common among Jews and Christians, at least the ones who know what the heck they are talking about.

PDN · 24-12-2011 1:33am

Zombrex wrote: »

Groan.

I'm well aware of what theophany is PDN. Do you actually have a response to what I said or do you think I will just be impressed by you throwing out big words :rolleyes:.

Well, if you know what a Theophany is, then you're obviously just making things up on the fly as usual. Because it is untrue to claim that 'the common interpretation' of Gen. 32 is that Jacob wrestled with an angel.

And 'theophany' isn't a big word - it only has 9 letters. Heck, I've played bigger words in Scrabble.

Jacob fought an angel. That is the interpretation common among Jews and Christians, at least the ones who know what the heck they are talking about.

I tell you what, you show me a source from before 33 AD that demonstrates that Jews interpreted this as referring to an angel. Then you can legitimately claim that Christians (except the ones who an atheist with abysmal biblical knowledge concedes that they know what they're talking about) have changed the Jewish interpretation.

Otherwise, face up to the fact that you have been proved wrong yet again. Jacob said, "I have seen God face to face". He didn't say, "I've seen an angel face to face, but I'm going to call the angel God instead because I think it sounds nicer."

Christian Theology has traditionally understood Gen 32 as referring to a Theophany (eg in the writings of Augustine of Hippo). It is also consistent with the words of God in Exodus 6 where God told Moses that He had appeared to Jacob.

namloc1980 · 24-12-2011 1:52am

God created Man.
Man created God.

Only one of these statements can be true. There is no evidence that God created Man, however there is plenty of evidence that Man created God. Believing in God is akin to believing in Santa or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's teapot.

Peregrinus · 24-12-2011 3:13am

marienbad wrote: »

Do you have any sources for your speculations on Pilate ?

It’s hard to quote a specific source for an event that never happened – namely, Pilate’s report to Rome regarding the tiresome Jesus of Nazareth business. My general comments on the way Roman provinces were governed are based on my reading in the area. There are plenty of general texts on the subject of Roman government. “The Roman World” by Victor Chapot is a useful introduction. “Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts” by Hanson and Oakman focuses particularly on Palestine, though it deals with more than just Roman government.

Your question is a reasonable but, in all fairness, Recedite’s claim that a report by Pilate would have been expected should, if well founded, be much easier to evidence – e.g. he could point to the existence of reports by Pilate on other matters, or by reports from other provincial governors of the crucifixion of religious troublemakers. If he can’t point to any of those, then he really has no foundation for his expectation that there should be a record of a report of Jesus’ crucifixion other than his own assumption that that’s how Roman provincial government worked. Positive claims are generally much easier to evidence than negative ones.

marienbad · 24-12-2011 6:26am

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s hard to quote a specific source for an event that never happened – namely, Pilate’s report to Rome regarding the tiresome Jesus of Nazareth business. My general comments on the way Roman provinces were governed are based on my reading in the area. There are plenty of general texts on the subject of Roman government. “The Roman World” by Victor Chapot is a useful introduction. “Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts” by Hanson and Oakman focuses particularly on Palestine, though it deals with more than just Roman government.

Your question is a reasonable but, in all fairness, Recedite’s claim that a report by Pilate would have been expected should, if well founded, be much easier to evidence – e.g. he could point to the existence of reports by Pilate on other matters, or by reports from other provincial governors of the crucifixion of religious troublemakers. If he can’t point to any of those, then he really has no foundation for his expectation that there should be a record of a report of Jesus’ crucifixion other than his own assumption that that’s how Roman provincial government worked. Positive claims are generally much easier to evidence than negative ones.

Yeah , but my point is that without 'something ''that is all just more speculation and not history. Your own point about Paul I think is the correct one in that we dont have to accept what he wrote , but we do have to accept that he wrote. Same I would suggest wirh all the gospels.

recedite · 24-12-2011 12:21pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Recedite’s claim that a report by Pilate would have been expected should, if well founded, be much easier to evidence – e.g. he could point to the existence of reports by Pilate on other matters, or by reports from other provincial governors of the crucifixion of religious troublemakers. If he can’t point to any of those, then he really has no foundation for his expectation that there should be a record of a report of Jesus’ crucifixion other than his own assumption that that’s how Roman provincial government worked. Positive claims are generally much easier to evidence than negative ones.

Pilate only lasted a few years in the post, and just because his actual correspondences don't survive, it does not follow that he sent none. Indeed they may even have been routinely destroyed after being read, for security or political reasons. His reports would have been read in Rome, and anything unusual discussed there. In that case we would expect to see an indirect reference to the "event" further up the chain of command. To clarify, I am not considering the crucifixion of a jewish troublemaker, at the request and behest of the local jewish rabbis, to be a significant event. As Jesus was only accused of breaking religious laws, it was tricky enough, in that neither Herod nor Pilate wished to tread on each others toes in those volatile times. But not something to report back to Rome, nor something be embarrassed about. Pilate could not have handled it differently; in his position he would have risked revolt by the Jews, nor could he have headed it off earlier by predicting Jesus' melodramatic arrival at the sensitive Passover time in an overcrowded town already seething with discontent.
The significant events for the Romans would have been (a) returning the body to the followers (b) disappearance of the body (c) the followers claiming resurrection of the body (d) a new sect of radicals being born.

We have detailed contemporary accounts of the Jewish Revolt from Josephus, including a blow by blow account (quite similar to a modern war correspondent's news report) of the fall of Jerusalem.

We also hear indirectly from Josephus that when a successor to Pilate (named Festus) died, detailed instructions were sent from Rome regarding the politico/religious arrangements to be made;
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus."

So, it is not credible to suggest either that Pilate covered up the events, or that Rome was far away and ignorant of what was going on, or that no records from those times survive.

Zombrex · 24-12-2011 1:21pm

PDN wrote: »

Well, if you know what a Theophany is, then you're obviously just making things up on the fly as usual. Because it is untrue to claim that 'the common interpretation' of Gen. 32 is that Jacob wrestled with an angel.

Wow, you really will argue the sky is black, won't you :rolleyes:

Perhaps you can explain why, if this is just my made up ramblings, that when this passage has been interpreted throughout history in art it has involved Jacob fighting an angel

Oh, and Merry Christmas

PDN · 24-12-2011 2:08pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Wow, you really will argue the sky is black, won't you :rolleyes:

Perhaps you can explain why, if this is just my made up ramblings, that when this passage has been interpreted throughout history in art it has involved Jacob fighting an angel

Sorry, I thought we were discussing what the Bible says rather than some paintings.

Presumably you also therefore think that Christianity teaches that God is an old man with a white beard, that the devil has horns and carries a pichfork, and that angels are chubby little prepubescent fellows with rosy cheeks.

Claiming that someone holding a position that Christians have held for 2000 years is 'arguing that the sky is black' holds out little hope that Wicknight will stop arguing nonsense in 2012.

Happy New Year.

The Quadratic Equation · 24-12-2011 2:39pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

Man created God.

If thats the case what created man, everything has a cause, so what was the first cause ? The uncaused cause ? We know from Science that energy cannot be created or distroyed, it can only change form, so what was its source ?

Zombrex · 24-12-2011 2:43pm

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I thought we were discussing what the Bible says rather than some paintings.

We are discussing interpretation of the Bible, as you are well aware.

I stated that Jews believe God is formless and would not have materialized as a man in the form of Jesus.

You countered that by saying that God appeared as a man to Jacob.

I explained that the common interpretation of that passage is that it was not God as a man, but an angel that Jacob saw. This interpretation is common among both Christians and Jews.

You stated no one believes that I just made it up.

I provided more than enough evidence that this isn't the case.

PDN wrote: »

Presumably you also therefore think that Christianity teaches that God is an old man with a white beard, that the devil has horns and carries a pichfork, and that angels are chubby little prepubescent fellows with rosy cheeks.

Nice straw man.

PDN wrote: »

Claiming that someone holding a position that Christians have held for 2000 years is 'arguing that the sky is black' holds out little hope that Wicknight will stop arguing nonsense in 2012.

It is some what surprising that this point has to be keep being made to you PDN but you should know that PDN position doesn't automatically equal the Christian position for the last 2,000 years.

Of course this is not even particularly relevant since we are discussing why Jews don't accept Jesus. But I guess you think it is easier to argue that this is the Christian position (it certainly is a Christian position) than it is to argue that it is the Jewish position.

PDN wrote: »

Happy New Year.

Same too you :P

Zombrex · 24-12-2011 2:44pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

If thats the case what created man, everything has a cause, so what was the first cause ? The uncaused cause ? We know from Science that energy cannot be created or distroyed, it can only change form, so what was its source ?

You are going to reject any answer to that question that isn't "God", so is there much point discussing this yet again?

The Quadratic Equation · 24-12-2011 3:07pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You are going to reject any answer to that question that isn't "God", so is there much point discussing this yet again?

Untill you have reputable proof for any claim that nothing created something, and everything sprang from nothing, then no.

PDN · 24-12-2011 3:11pm

PDN wrote: »

I tell you what, you show me a source from before 33 AD that demonstrates that Jews interpreted this as referring to an angel. Then you can legitimately claim that Christians (except the ones who an atheist with abysmal biblical knowledge concedes that they know what they're talking about) have changed the Jewish interpretation.

No takers? It seems strange that posters claim they know what Jewish interpretations were before Christianity, but can't produce any sources.

Btw, just to clarify, some paintings from 13 centuries later don't quite cut it. :pac:

marienbad · 24-12-2011 6:17pm

recedite wrote: »

Pilate only lasted a few years in the post, and just because his actual correspondences don't survive, it does not follow that he sent none. Indeed they may even have been routinely destroyed after being read, for security or political reasons. His reports would have been read in Rome, and anything unusual discussed there. In that case we would expect to see an indirect reference to the "event" further up the chain of command. To clarify, I am not considering the crucifixion of a jewish troublemaker, at the request and behest of the local jewish rabbis, to be a significant event. As Jesus was only accused of breaking religious laws, it was tricky enough, in that neither Herod nor Pilate wished to tread on each others toes in those volatile times. But not something to report back to Rome, nor something be embarrassed about. Pilate could not have handled it differently; in his position he would have risked revolt by the Jews, nor could he have headed it off earlier by predicting Jesus' melodramatic arrival at the sensitive Passover time in an overcrowded town already seething with discontent.
The significant events for the Romans would have been (a) returning the body to the followers (b) disappearance of the body (c) the followers claiming resurrection of the body (d) a new sect of radicals being born.

We have detailed contemporary accounts of the Jewish Revolt from Josephus, including a blow by blow account (quite similar to a modern war correspondent's news report) of the fall of Jerusalem.

We also hear indirectly from Josephus that when a successor to Pilate (named Festus) died, detailed instructions were sent from Rome regarding the politico/religious arrangements to be made;
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus."

So, it is not credible to suggest either that Pilate covered up the events, or that Rome was far away and ignorant of what was going on, or that no records from those times survive.

I am completely confused at this stage at what exactly you are saying, It seems like you are claiming there are no records when it suits you and details records records when it suits you.

The very absence of records that in your imaginery scenario as to why Pilate did'nt sent reports to Rome has a much more likely explanation.

Those events did'nt happen ( not the birth death by crucifixion of Jesus) , just the miraculous parts . If that was the case everything is as you would expect is it not ? Just another messianic jew crucified at the behest of his own . Regretable but 'nothing to write home about'

Ciaran0 · 24-12-2011 7:02pm

What's all this fuss about the whole something springing from nothing? As if it's the most ridiculous claim anyone's ever made. There's idea's a whole lot more far fetched being supported by the same people who always repeat "something can't spring from nothing" mantra.
Another thing is, it's not as if those opposed to the idea of God are always saying that something sprang from nothing. No one actually knows if the Big Bang was even the beginning, or what caused it, or if there was something beforehand. It just reminds me of the Christian fear of non existence. Seeing as we don't know how the universe started, how does someone saying that God doesn't exist equate to something having to have sprung from nothing?

And if god does exist and created the universe then what did he create it from? surely not nothing!

And why is it always "sprung"?

Zombrex · 24-12-2011 7:06pm

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Untill you have reputable proof for any claim that nothing created something, and everything sprang from nothing, then no.

Well then, why do you keep asking?

It has been pointed out to you many times that currently we don't know what causes this universe to spring into existence (if anything), though a number of different hypothesis exist.

Most of these (such as M-theory) propose an eternal fabric that the universe exists in.

But then you only want the answer to be "God did it", so science proposing different ideas to this will mean nothing to you.

Zombrex · 24-12-2011 7:13pm

PDN wrote: »

No takers? It seems strange that posters claim they know what Jewish interpretations were before Christianity, but can't produce any sources.

Well that isn't actually what I claimed, but sure don't let the weight of all those straw men get you down PDN.

Seeing as you are the expert when was the Book of Hosea written?

PDN wrote: »

Btw, just to clarify, some paintings from 13 centuries later don't quite cut it. :pac:

Those were to demonstrate Christian interpretation so naturally they aren't going to be before Christian :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock · 24-12-2011 7:34pm

Ciaran0 wrote: »

It just reminds me of the Christian fear of non existence. Seeing as we don't know how the universe started, how does someone saying that God doesn't exist equate to something having to have sprung from nothing?

It isn't a Christian fear of non-existence. It's a human fear of death and whatever this entails. But maybe you are so rational that you don't fear death. It's just like going to sleep forever. No biggie, eh?

Ciaran0 wrote: »

And if god does exist and created the universe then what did he create it from? surely not nothing!

Who knows. It's rather pointless asking it though. Firstly, we can't possibly know the answer to this question. Secondly, any answer given will assuredly be rejected by you. I would say, though, that as God isn't nothing (and here nothing means no thing, not the equivocation some people use to attempt to describe something like a quantum vacuum as nothing) the universe didn't arise from nothing. It arose from God.

Fanny Cradock · 24-12-2011 7:36pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Seeing as you are the expert when was the Book of Hosea written?

Sorry, but what has that got to do with anything?

ISAW · 24-12-2011 7:42pm

marienbad wrote: »

No ISAW the could haves, should haves, might haves, in general have absolutely no place in history

I dont think you are getting it! History is a map The Past is the territory.
People might have different maps. The maps are not the territory.
So you might have a map with feature A and B on it but no C and i might have a map with B and C but no A

Assuming A B and C were all there neither of our maps are 100% true.
We can boith however write a history on whichb we both agree on B butyou might say
"A happened and C might have happened" and i say
"C happened but A might have happened"

and where we dont't have primary sources or eyewitness accounts we don't speculate about how those we do have
could have might been rtc....

Really? and in the case of Alexander the Great or Socrates WHAT primary sources or eyewitness accounts can you prodiuce for me? I suspect zero! Yet you will argue they both existed? How is your belief they existed not "speculation"?

I don't fully understand your second paragraph but it appears to refer to cultural history as opposed to history where you can speculate all you want.

AS I stated, it seems to me you are confusing "history" and "the past"

I personally by the way have little or no doubt of the existance of Jesus, it is his achievements that is the issue. And on that issue, what motive or agenda have those people you refer to who take the achievements of Alexander as fact and yet doubt the achievements of Jesus ?

Clearly many are atheist and dont believe ion Christ. Some hate the church. they think if they can assert Jesus never existed then they will make Christians look foolish. Buttheir smug position seems to be ignorant of classical scholarship and the methodologies employes and the material available. For example they refer to problems of scant "contemporaneous writings" about Jesus when no such writings at all exist for Socrates
and Alexander as is a widely accepoted fact amone historians of antiquity.

By the way as I asked Impaoml but got no reply- do you believe in hell ?

You would have to ask him that. As for me one could consider hell as the absence of God or not being able to tolerate the presence of God.

marienbad · 24-12-2011 8:54pm

ISAW wrote: »

I dont think you are getting it! History is a map The Past is the territory.
People might have different maps. The maps are not the territory.
So you might have a map with feature A and B on it but no C and i might have a map with B and C but no A

Assuming A B and C were all there neither of our maps are 100% true.
We can boith however write a history on whichb we both agree on B butyou might say
"A happened and C might have happened" and i say
"C happened but A might have happened"

Really? and in the case of Alexander the Great or Socrates WHAT primary sources or eyewitness accounts can you prodiuce for me? I suspect zero! Yet you will argue they both existed? How is your belief they existed not "speculation"?

AS I stated, it seems to me you are confusing "history" and "the past"

Clearly many are atheist and dont believe ion Christ. Some hate the church. they think if they can assert Jesus never existed then they will make Christians look foolish. Buttheir smug position seems to be ignorant of classical scholarship and the methodologies employes and the material available. For example they refer to problems of scant "contemporaneous writings" about Jesus when no such writings at all exist for Socrates
and Alexander as is a widely accepoted fact amone historians of antiquity.

You would have to ask him that. As for me one could consider hell as the absence of God or not being able to tolerate the presence of God.

Lets us just dis-agree on the meaning of history then, could haves should haves mights haves just don't make it in my book. It would appear that you are the confused one.

You seem to be particularly fond of using Alexander and Socrates as valid comparisions ,So lets compare ,

Alexander (356-323 BC)was not a writer he was a soldier but his contemporaries that served with him did write accounts, all of which are lost. But accounts based on those accounts have survived as well as numerous mentions from the civilisations that he conquered. Then we have the coinage, the cities named after him and the dynasties that followed on from his generals . He even gets a mention in the Koran

Socrates (470-399 BC) Again left no writings but detailed accounts from his contemporaries Plato Aristophanes and Xenophon, and not all flattering.

But why pick those two ? Why not near contemporaries of Jesus ? Say Tiberius and Lucretius for instance ?

On those deniers of Jesus- are you seriously stating that there is a 2000 year old and continuing plot to deny the existence of Jesus by reputable historians ?

Fanny Cradock · 24-12-2011 9:22pm

marienbad wrote: »

On those deniers of Jesus- are you seriously stating that there is a 2000 year old and continuing plot to deny the existence of Jesus by reputable historians ?

No, it's a thoroughly modern position.

PDN · 24-12-2011 10:21pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, it's a thoroughly modern position.

And not one taken by most reputable historians.

marienbad · 24-12-2011 11:02pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, it's a thoroughly modern position.

So when did all this start then ? and what are they denying ? the historicity of jesus the man or the god or both ? And while we at it and on this thread that so loves its sources, can we have a few names and examples.

recedite · 24-12-2011 11:04pm

And a complete strawman. Has anyone here denied a man called Jesus existed?

PDN · 24-12-2011 11:52pm

marienbad wrote: »

So when did all this start then ? and what are they denying ? the historicity of jesus the man or the god or both ? And while we at it and on this thread that so loves its sources, can we have a few names and examples.

The first time I came across anyone denying the historicity of Jesus as a man was on the Atheism & Agnosticism Forum where it crops up fairly often (use the boards.ie search facility if you want sources). I've certainly never come across it in any academic or rational setting.

namloc1980 · 25-12-2011 12:03am

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Untill you have reputable proof for any claim that nothing created something, and everything sprang from nothing, then no.

Why are you shoe horning the debate into the "something from nothing" argument? Much of contemporary cosmology is based on the theory that this universe originated from the collapse of a previous universe and that universe originated from the collapse of an earlier universe and so on.

ISAW · 25-12-2011 12:20am

marienbad wrote: »

Lets us just dis-agree on the meaning of history then, could haves should haves mights haves just don't make it in my book. It would appear that you are the confused one.

I know iot may seem odd but history is an interpretation - a story
The history of Pealr Harbour as the beginning of WWII fopr example.
The Americans have a history and the Japanese have an entirely different history. Which one are you saying is right and whom are you saying might have the wrong one?

You seem to be particularly fond of using Alexander and Socrates as valid comparisions ,So lets compare ,

Im happy to pick others. They just were around the same time (all from ancient/classical history) and one was "the greatest" philosopher and the other "the greatest" military +political leader ever. You might think ther is loads of "contemporaneous written" evidence for them?

Alexander (356-323 BC)was not a writer he was a soldier but his contemporaries that served with him did write accounts, all of which are lost.

And apparently some of which were just made up. What "contempories" by the way. Other than one official historian who is suspected of making things up?

[qoote]
But accounts based on those accounts have survived as well as numerous mentions from the civilisations that he conquered.
[/quote]

Accounts of accounts? So not contemporaneous then? Fair enough. Alexander was when 300BC? SO whataccounts from when? A hundred years later ? Two hundred? More? How many accounts? By how many independent writers? Now for the gospels i would suggest you have a superiour written record. And dont forget her we are talking about the leader of the largest Empire of those times, and of any land Empire up to Genghis Kahn ( and Im sure Alexander could have conquered China if he bothered and didn=nt die young ). As opposed to the son of a handy man who never did anything public till he was 30 and died three years later?

Then we have the coinage,

I said "written" but okay WHAT coinage? the ones with Athenas or Heracles head on them? Were Athena or Hercules around then as well? There are few oif any coins from 300 BC in existance with even the name Alexander.

the cities named after him and the dynasties that followed on from his generals . He even gets a mention in the Koran

This would be the fifth century Koran? Genies also get a mention don't they?
As for things named after him how many "Christ;'s church" are there? A city in New Zeeland and thousands of buildings. and the church had followed on for 2000 years.

Socrates (470-399 BC) Again left no writings but detailed accounts from his contemporaries Plato Aristophanes and Xenophon, and not all flattering.

Socrates didn't write! He was a genius who dealt in diaslogue. He drove people mad. Ironically, I employed his same techniques on boards and was banned form politics.

Aristophones and Xenop[hon wrote drama based on him but it is a charachter in a play not a "history" as you would claim. I would claim it is however. But it isn't an account of a proof of his existence.

But why pick those two ? Why not near contemporaries of Jesus ? Say Tiberius and Lucretius for instance ?

The king of the world and the greatest philosopher of all time.

On those deniers of Jesus- are you seriously stating that there is a 2000 year old and continuing plot to deny the existence of Jesus by reputable historians ?

No not at all- by disreputable atheists and others.

Fanny Cradock · 25-12-2011 12:30am

marienbad wrote: »

So when did all this start then ? and what are they denying ? the historicity of jesus the man or the god or both ? And while we at it and on this thread that so loves its sources, can we have a few names and examples.

I'm not quite sure when all this began but I seem to recall that it was quite recently - say within the last 200 years or so. Possibly books like The Golden Bough helped promulgate the idea. Indeed, it is my understanding that Biblical scholarship reached a point some time towards the beginning/ mid point of last century were many of the leading intellectuals within the discipline, men like Rudolf Bultmann, for example, placed next to no confidence in the historicity of the Bible. Even devout Christian thinkers like Karl Barth, a contemporary of men like Bultmann, thought that there was little in the way of solid historical evidence for Jesus.

It is only in recent times, with new historical discoveries and new methods of historical analysis, that the stuff we thought we knew is being seriously re-evaluated. The tide has come in again, so to speak. The consensus amongst scholars nowadays is that Jesus did exist. This is true even of men like Bart Ehrman who is no friend of Christianity (though admittedly this is not his area of expertise). Whether Jesus was God is an entirely different question.

If you want to know more about all this then do a search for "historical Jesus". Alternatively you could listen to the following two-part show between two Biblical scholars - one Christian, the other agnostic - that deals with the question of the historical Jesus. Part 1. Part 2. The same program featured another discussion appropriatly entitled Did Jesus Exist? between Ken Humphries who flatly denies the existence of Jesus and J.P Holding who was arguing that he was talking rubbish. Sparks flew if memory serves correctly.

There is no ancient source that denies the existence of a man called Jesus. The usual line of argument against a mythological Jesus is that the religious authorities would have been keen to nip this troublesome new sect in the bud by flatly denying that Jesus existed. It would have been in their interest to do so. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that they denied the existence of Jesus. So unless one wants to argue from silence there seems to be no historical reason to deny his existence.

PDN · 25-12-2011 12:35am

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why are you shoe horning the debate into the "something from nothing" argument? Much of contemporary cosmology is based on the theory that this universe originated from the collapse of a previous universe and that universe originated from the collapse of an earlier universe and so on.

To quote Stephen Hawking, "It's turtles all the way down."

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments