The existence or non-existence of a god/the gods

Dave!

Jakkass, what about these points? People killing and dying for what they believe to be true, and yet you discount their devotion for some reason?

Why is the fact that the apostles were willing to die for Jesus more remarkable than these more recent examples?

robindch wrote: »

The early history of the mormons is littered with corpses, both their own, those of their enemies as well as that of their founder.

With this logic, you have just proved the Church of the Latter Day Saints is true.

King Mob wrote: »

Falun Gong is a cult/religion whose practitioners are being arrested, tortured and killed by the Chinese government.
But by Jakkass's logic, they must then have all the superpowers they claim to have, as there is no other explanation for why they would endure so much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong

And this isn't 2000 year old hearsay, this is happening today and we can show evidence that it is.

philologos

Bringing in other examples such as that of the Mormons, and of the Falun Gong although interesting is sidetracking the point about other possibilities to the early Christian church, and how one gets from a point where Jesus is dead, and has not risen from the dead, to proclaiming that He indeed has to the rest of the world.

The Mormons do not have a situation akin to this in respect to the life of Joseph Smith, and The Falun Gong do not have a situation akin to this. This is different in the respect, that there is a death, and a claimed miracle concerning that death motivating the very spread of that faith. The Mormons and the Falun Gong do not to my knowledge have such a situation.

Your responses would be far more useful if they didn't contain examples which do not resemble the specific circumstances involved with the Resurrection, Pentecost, and the early church.

sonicthebadger*

Jakkass wrote: »

Bringing in other examples such as that of the Mormons, and of the Falun Gong although interesting is sidetracking the point about other possibilities to the early Christian church, and how one gets from a point where Jesus is dead, and has not risen from the dead, to proclaiming that He indeed has to the rest of the world.

The Mormons do not have a situation akin to this in respect to the life of Joseph Smith, and The Falun Gong do not have a situation akin to this. This is different in the respect, that there is a death, and a claimed miracle concerning that death motivating the very spread of that faith. The Mormons and the Falun Gong do not to my knowledge have such a situation.

Your responses would be far more useful if they didn't contain examples which do not resemble the specific circumstances involved with the Resurrection, Pentecost, and the early church.

His rising from the dead was a prophecy fulfillment wasn't it?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob - I still haven't been presented a reasonable case to demonstrate how we progress from Jesus having died, and remained dead, to the disciples and all followers at Jerusalem proclaiming that Jesus had actually risen, to the risk of their own lives, without any financial gain in doing so.

We've been through this a few times before, but reducing the issue to one of "financial gain" is really missing the mark.

Not only are there the many other plausible explanations for the existence of the bible stories as we generally have them, and which others have listed here and elsewhere, but if you're going to say that the Jesus story is plausible simply because people died to propagate it, then you are intellectually obliged to explain why you believe that other religions, for which people have also died, are false.

philologos

Not just financial gain. There was very little gain to be had at all, a huge risk of death which eventually became a reality. Why on earth would they not have just gone back to fishing in Galilee if this was what faced them?

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob - I still haven't been presented a reasonable case to demonstrate how we progress from Jesus having died, and remained dead, to the disciples and all followers at Jerusalem proclaiming that Jesus had actually risen, to the risk of their own lives, without any financial gain in doing so.

And none of this is clear verifiable scientific evidence that the resurrection happened in any shape or form.
It's an argument from incredulity.

Jakkass wrote: »

If I had received any other reasonable possibility that held up to criticism, it would be a good reason to doubt that the Resurrection infact took place. It is this huge gaping hole that arises after one does away with the Resurrection that would be a real stumbling block for me, as a Christian who cares deeply about the Gospel to reject it.

I did provide a few scenarios.
1) that they where duped by a charlatan,
2) They they exaggerated stories.

How do you discount these possibilities?
Both are possible, and require no supernatural or previously unknown elements to explain anything and we can both to many many instances of both things happening today.

And these are just two very simple scenarios, there's a load more I probably can't think of, and then there's probably tons of combinations of these scenarios.
Hence why your arguement doesn't hold water unless you can sohow evidence a supernatural event even took place.

You're simply shifting the burden of proof.
You claim the resurrection happened, you have to support that with evidence.

Jakkass wrote: »

Just to make clear. I won't be dealing with any accusations, implied or otherwise that people make concerning my presence or absence from this thread. Boards.ie isn't going to be the only thing I do, and it is something I do for my own recreation rather than for your pleasure.

So then why are you refusing to provide the evidence?

If I claim something about a scientific idea or fact I can back it up with clear verifiable scientific evidence.
Why can't you do the same?

Jakkass wrote: »

Not just financial gain. There was very little gain to be had at all, a huge risk of death which eventually became a reality. Why on earth would they not have just gone back to fishing in Galilee if this was what faced them?

So why do the practitioners of Falun Gong still do it knowing full well they could be taken away for doing it?
Do they actually have the superpowers they claim?

What about the Heaven's Gate cult?
Why did they all (including the leaders) kill themselves if they weren't going to a spaceship?

Why do people follow this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba?

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

Bringing in other examples such as that of the Mormons, and of the Falun Gong although interesting is sidetracking the point about other possibilities to the early Christian church, and how one gets from a point where Jesus is dead, and has not risen from the dead, to proclaiming that He indeed has to the rest of the world.

The Mormons do not have a situation akin to this in respect to the life of Joseph Smith, and The Falun Gong do not have a situation akin to this. This is different in the respect, that there is a death, and a claimed miracle concerning that death motivating the very spread of that faith. The Mormons and the Falun Gong do not to my knowledge have such a situation.

Your responses would be far more useful if they didn't contain examples which do not resemble the specific circumstances involved with the Resurrection, Pentecost, and the early church.

Joseph Smith and his supernaturally obtained and deciphered golden plates, that noone happened to see.
The whole thing of Mormonism revolves around these just as the resurrection does. If these didn't actually exist there would be no basis for the religion, just as if the ressurection didn't happen.

How do you go from Joseph Smith not having these tablets to proclaiming that he indeed has to the rest of the world?

sonicthebadger*

King Mob wrote: »

Joseph Smith and his supernaturally obtained and deciphered golden plates, that noone happened to see.
The whole thing of Mormonism revolves around these just as the resurrection does. If these didn't actually exist there would be no basis for the religion, just as if the ressurection didn't happen.

How do you go from Joseph Smith not having these tablets to proclaiming that he indeed has to the rest of the world?

Oh my, I think I just became a Mormon. That has convinced me!

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Not just financial gain. There was very little gain to be had at all, a huge risk of death which eventually became a reality. Why on earth would they not have just gone back to fishing in Galilee if this was what faced them?

Because they believed that they would burn in hell for all eternity if they didn't propagate the message. Against this belief, and placed beside a general christian belief that suffering is in some way glorious, the act of dying once and relatively quickly seems trivial -- in fact, it's the rational and correct course of action.

At which point, we must ask whether it's possible to make people believe (incorrectly) that somebody has died and come back to life. And you can see from a quick google search, that this seems to be a fairly easy thing to do.

BTW, how many of the disciples died in the act of propagating the religion? My memory of the texts suggests that not more than a handful were.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

Not just financial gain. There was very little gain to be had at all, a huge risk of death which eventually became a reality. Why on earth would they not have just gone back to fishing in Galilee if this was what faced them?

Which has happened in every single religion, ever.
Its even happened for completely non-religious reasons.

Self sacrifice is extremely common throughout history.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob - I still haven't been presented a reasonable case to demonstrate how we progress from Jesus having died, and remained dead, to the disciples and all followers at Jerusalem proclaiming that Jesus had actually risen, to the risk of their own lives, without any financial gain in doing so.

They could have believed what they saw was true, but been mistaken.

To re-iterate (again) your own point from earlier:

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, if I am to bring René Descartes to the table as he is a first class expert on trickery and deception, he would say that the senses are prone to deceiving us... This is reasoning that is unverifiable, if we understand that the senses are prone to deception...

Your position here seems to be that we can't trust our own senses when interacting with the world around us, going on to question not just your own senses, but the collective senses of everyone, even to the point of the questioning the very existance of all externality:

Isn't it possible that we are all deceived in thinking that external things must of necessity exist?

Why is this same logic not applicable to the resurrection story?

"Isn't it possible that [his disciples] [were] all deceived in thinking that [Jesus died and arose again]?"

kiffer

King Mob wrote: »

So jakkass given your initial dodging and now absence from the thread can I assume you cannot provide a single piece of clear verifiable evidence from which the possibilities of trickery, psychological effects and other factors have been excluded?

Why is that?

What I don't understand is how you can hold your position with only stuff that cannot be verified and is subject to trickery, psychological effects and other factors.

Bad form King Mob... You've got to allow people a couple of days to respond... before you say that they've run off... Unless maybe they're posting in other threads... A bigger issue is responding to posts but ignoring difficult questions.

Edit: bonus pint to the person that can spot the most important thing from my little parable...

philologos

Naz_st wrote: »

They could have believed what they saw was true, but been mistaken.

Good point, but wouldn't it be incredibly difficult to mistake someone you had been around pretty much constantly for 3 years to someone else. Not only this, if we take into account the probability of all those who had come to meet Jesus post-Resurrection, it becomes even more slim. The probability of one being deceived in these circumstances is one thing, the probability of many more being deceived in these circumstances is another.

Naz_st wrote: »

To re-iterate (again) your own point from earlier:

Just to stop you there. You're quoting me out of context. My point in using George Berkeley (who was also Church of Ireland bishop of Cloyne in the 18th century), not only as a study aid to me for my philosophy exam coming up , but also in demonstrating how the reasoning that atheists employ concerning God is not all that practical in other areas of observation.

It may be possible that the external world doesn't exist, but if we behaved on a daily basis as if external bodies didn't exist we wouldn't be getting very far.

There is nothing more logical in holding such a position than in not holding that position. The same is true from my perspective with atheism as a viewpoint. One can conclude that God may not exist, but practically this doesn't mean that it is so.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

Good point, but wouldn't it be incredibly difficult to mistake someone you had been around pretty much constantly for 3 years to someone else. Not only this, if we take into account the probability of all those who had come to meet Jesus post-Resurrection, it becomes even more slim. The probability of one being deceived in these circumstances is one thing, the probability of many more being deceived in these circumstances is another.

Since the apostles where so familiar with him why didn't they recognise him at first?

Luke 24:15-16

As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.

John 20:15

"Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?" Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."

John 21:4

Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

And again how do you know he even died in the first place?

philologos

I concede that to you. However, not everything is about looks, and indeed, in Luke 24 (the walk to Emmaus) the people walking with him understood that it was him after he discussed the Scriptures at length with them.

Likewise, the disciples would know more about the personality of Jesus, even disregarding the appearance issue for the time being.

In addition, Jesus was around 40 days prior to the Ascension. Surely that would have been enough time to verify whether or not Jesus who He said He was?

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

Good point, but wouldn't it be incredibly difficult to mistake someone you had been around pretty much constantly for 3 years to someone else. Not only this, if we take into account the probability of all those who had come to meet Jesus post-Resurrection, it becomes even more slim. The probability of one being deceived in these circumstances is one thing, the probability of many more being deceived in these circumstances is another.

Or they may have been mistaken instead about him being dead in the first place. You yourself point out that our senses are fallible, so this explanation is at least consistent with what we know about human beings and the natural world. In this regard, how is the supernatural explanation "God exists, Jesus was his son and so God resurrected him" more plausible?

Just to stop you there. You're quoting me out of context. My point in using George Berkeley (who was also Church of Ireland bishop of Cloyne in the 18th century), not only as a study aid to me for my philosophy exam coming up , but also in demonstrating how the reasoning that atheists employ concerning God is not all that practical in other areas of observation.

Look, regardless of your motivations for posting that originally, it is clear from what you posted (context included) that you accept that human senses are fallible and can be deceived, including on a grand scale. For specific examples, take the psychology experiments done on conformity (such as the experiment on the autokinetic effect done by Muzafer Sherif in 1936) where groups of people "agreed" on something that in reality wasn't happening. Or Asch's experiments on conformity and social pressure in the 1950s where people would agree with others on answers that they knew were wrong.

Add in the fact that each individual's view of reality is tinted by being viewed through the prism of their pre-conceived notions of it and it's much easier to see how group thinking amongst a cadre of like-minded individuals (Jesus's followers all being pre-disposed to accepting his divinity to varying degrees) can easily lead to mistakes about what really happened.

This boils down to age-old wisdom that people believe what they want to believe.

Once again, how is the supernatural explanation "God exists, Jesus was his son and so God resurrected him" more plausible?

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

I concede that to you. However, not everything is about looks, and indeed, in Luke 24 (the walk to Emmaus) the people walking with him understood that it was him after he discussed the Scriptures at length with them.

So what he looked different?
Did he regenerate like the Doctor?

Jakkass wrote: »

Likewise, the disciples would know more about the personality of Jesus, even disregarding the appearance issue for the time being.

So in establishing someone's identity we should disregard what they look like and they're supposed sudden change in appearance?
Seriously?

Jakkass wrote: »

In addition, Jesus was around 40 days prior to the Ascension. Surely that would have been enough time to verify whether or not Jesus who He said He was?

Or perhaps it was that if anyone questioned whether or not that was Jesus they were expelled from the cult or punished.

Or that he never died in the first place.

Just to recap btw, I asked for the best clear verifiable scientific evidence and you provide what you are told is someone's word about their eye witness testimony from 2000 years ago, and it's inconsistent?

Do you have any clear verifiable evidence that he resurrection actually happened?

And are you going to even acknowledge the other points that have been brought up?

philologos

Enough of this "refusing to provide the evidence". I've given you the factors that indicate to me that Christianity is true. I.E - The information that give credence to it being true rather than not (indicatory evidence).

I'm not going to engage in a childish type of discussion where you make demands. I'm simply not, because I post here, to discuss, not be be goaded. Indeed, I'd suggest this is something that the moderators need to work on. If people are discussing with theists, that's what it means. An interchange, mutual questioning and discussion. Not a one sided Q&A session. I made that clear from the start.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

Enough of this "refusing to provide the evidence". I've given you the factors that indicate to me that Christianity is true. I.E - The information that give credence to it being true rather than not (indicatory evidence).

None of which were clear.
None of which were verifiable.
None of which excluded the possibility or trickery, delusion or other factors.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not going to engage in a childish type of discussion where you make demands. I'm simply not, because I post here, to discuss, not be be goaded. Indeed, I'd suggest this is something that the moderators need to work on. If people are discussing with theists, that's what it means. An interchange, mutual questioning and discussion. Not a one sided Q&A session. I made that clear from the start.

And If you looked at the start of the discussion I've asked one question and you've refused to even acknowledge it.
Can you provide clear, verifiable, scientific evidence?

I've answered most (if not all) of your questions and addressed many of your points.
Your complaining rings totally false considering you refuse to answer my main question and spend most of you posts either ignoring it or dodging it.

And you wonder why I hold my stance?

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

So what he looked different?
Did he regenerate like the Doctor?

Christians believe that the Resurrected Christ had a differing appearance to that prior to the Resurrection.

King Mob wrote: »

So in establishing someone's identity we should disregard what they look like and they're supposed sudden change in appearance?
Seriously?

I never said disregard. I said broaden your considerations. Please try not to strawman my position.

King Mob wrote: »

Or perhaps it was that if anyone questioned whether or not that was Jesus they were expelled from the cult or punished.

Perhaps, do you have anything to document this?

King Mob wrote: »

Or that he never died in the first place.

This is also a possibility, were it not also true that one of the Roman soldiers had pierced Jesus in the lung after he had died.

King Mob wrote: »

Just to recap btw, I asked for the best clear verifiable scientific evidence and you provide what you are told is someone's word about their eye witness testimony from 2000 years ago, and it's inconsistent?

This only came after the start of the discussion. Evidence doesn't just involve scientific evidence.

You asked for this. I made it clear that it wouldn't be my only consideration here:

Is all evidence scientific? For example, can one indicate that something may well be true, by any other means? (I'm referring to indicatory evidence rather than proof, as indeed you know, I don't believe there is absolute proof in either way in this). Indicatory evidence = What suggests that God may exist, or what suggests that God may not exist. That's the only level we can get to in this debate.

If you want absolute 100% proof. Neither of us can provide it.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you have any clear verifiable evidence that he resurrection actually happened?

You're conflating evidence with proof here I think. I'm referring to indicatory evidence. I.E - Something that indicates that the Resurrection occurred rather than did not. This is what we are dealing with.

The gap, and the difficulty to resolve it in Christian history is indicatory evidence that the Resurrection occurred.

King Mob wrote: »

And are you going to even acknowledge the other points that have been brought up?

I'll deal with as many points as I can get around to. I amn't obliged to go through every single one.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Good point, but wouldn't it be incredibly difficult to mistake someone you had been around pretty much constantly for 3 years to someone else.

So Jesus dies. And his followers are devastated. And then rumors start that he has risen from the dead. And his followers meet someone claiming to be Jesus, and don't recognize him because he looked different. But after a while they conclude it must be him because of what he says.

And you can't think of a natural explanation for this? Really? Someone pretending to be Jesus for example who his followers prefer to accept is actually Jesus than deal with the grief of losing their leader and Messiah, perhaps?

There are plenty of documented cases where grief stricken people act under the delusion that the person they lost (a child for example) is someone else and act towards them in this way. It is easy to see someone taking advantage of this.

Heck maybe, like The Life of Brian, the person wasn't even pretending to be Jesus but these followers claimed he was and used that as evidence for the resurrection. We have a case at the moment of a cult declaring someone to be the messiah despite him protesting he really isn't

You guys simply reject far less fantastical explanations than a resurrections simply because it does not fit what you want to be true, and then make a lot about how "rational" your faith is.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

Christians believe that the Resurrected Christ had a differing appearance to that prior to the Resurrection.

So yes, like the Doctor.
And don't you think this opens the event up to suspicion?

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said disregard. I said broaden your considerations. Please try not to strawman my position.

Yes you did.

Jakkass wrote: »

Likewise, the disciples would know more about the personality of Jesus, even disregarding the appearance issue for the time being.

If someone came up to me claiming to be my dead father but not looking like him, I couldn't disregard his appearance even for a second.
Specially if I was living in a time before plastic surgery.
And double specially if he's claiming a supernatural cause.

So why did Jesus look different?

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps, do you have anything to document this?

So you're asking me to provide evidence for this?
That's rich.

I'm merely presenting another possibility that would explain the scenario with out the need for a supernatural event.
Do you think this couldn't be the case?
If so, why?

Jakkass wrote: »

This is also a possibility, were it not also true that one of the Roman soldiers had pierced Jesus in the lung after he had died.

How do you know it was Jesus on the cross?
How do you know he was pierced in the side at all?
how do you know the Roman soldier wasn't in on it and faked it?

Again your only argument is that supernatural resurrection is the only possible explanation.
We are providing many many explanations that do not require a supernatural event, and which we can provide other examples of.

Jakkass wrote: »

This only came after the start of the discussion. Evidence doesn't just involve scientific evidence.

And I had explain what I meant by scientific evidence in my second (or third) post.
This is the second time I'm pointing this out to you.

Jakkass wrote: »

You asked for this. I made it clear that it wouldn't be my only consideration here:

And I had explained (and pointed out I had explained) that I wasn't asking you for proof.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're conflating evidence with proof here I think. I'm referring to indicatory evidence. I.E - Something that indicates that the Resurrection occurred rather than did not. This is what we are dealing with.

No I'm not I was very very clear on this. I am and have always been asking for evidence that is verifiable and is free (to a reasonable degree) of the possibility of trickery, psychological effects and other such factors.

Can you provide such evidence, yes or no?

Jakkass wrote: »

The gap, and the difficulty to resolve it in Christian history is indicatory evidence that the Resurrection occurred.

So how do you explain the golden tablets of Joseph Smith if they are not a supernatural occurrence?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll deal with as many points as I can get around to. I amn't obliged to go through every single one.

Ah so just ignoring the important ones....

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

Christians believe that the Resurrected Christ had a differing appearance to that prior to the Resurrection.

Is there a generally excepted reason for this change in appearence?

This is also a possibility, were it not also true that one of the Roman soldiers had pierced Jesus in the lung after he had died.

Is that true? What if that was also untrue?

It could just be a bit that someone inserted into the story when some young smart ass asked how do we know he died on the cross?

I'll deal with as many points as I can get around to. I amn't obliged to go through every single one.

No, you're not obliged to go through every point but too much cherry picking looks bad, looks like your dodging things...

King Mob

Right let's consider four scenarios.

A- the biblical story is completely factual and Jesus was supernaturally resurrected.

B- Jesus was a fraud and a huckster (possibility aided by some of his followers), and faked his miracles including his resurrection (either by direct visual illusions or by spreading false stories.)

C- Jesus was an honest preacher with honest followers who honestly believed, who after his death embellished stories with exaggeration and allegory.
("physical death to spiritual resurrection" becomes "Physical resurrection" over multiple tellings.)

D- Jesus and the events of his life are entirely fictional.

Of course these are only a few possibilities there could be hundreds of others.

Now each would explain all of the events more or less and all are possible.
Only A is different however.
For B to be true it would require that someone would go around deliberately fooling people into believe in his supernatural powers.
We can see hundreds of examples of this.

For C to be true it would require that people embellish stories and change them over time.
Again we can point to hundreds of examples of this.

For D to be true it would require that people write fictional stories that could be confused with fact.
Two people: Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes.

However for A to be true it requires that supernatural resurrection can happen.
But we can't find a single example of this that can be verified and exclude the possibility of trickery, delusion or other factors.

All we do now is apply occam's razor ....

So unless you have some verifiable evidence that any resurrection ever took place, you cannot honestly say that believing is the resurrection in the only reasonable position.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

And his followers meet someone claiming to be Jesus, and don't recognize him because he looked different. But after a while they conclude it must be him because of what he says.

Or one of his followers is so distraught from Jesus' death, he has an hallucination where Jesus speaks to him (loads of people claim to have these experiences) and he believes he is now 'one' with jesus or something. So people might believe that the spirit of Jesus now lives in this man, and write about it.

Or.. or.. or lots of other plausible natural explanations. What I don't understand Jakkass, and we've discussed this before, is why you choose a supernatural explanation over a natural one. It makes no sense at all. Choosing a supernatural explanation is such a massive leap. It's a leap that requires a lot more than 'indicatory' evidence, becuase you would not accept a supernatural explanation over a multitude of natural ones in other circumstances.

Birroc

I am Jesus.

Flamed Diving

Birroc wrote: »

I am Jesus.

I will die for you.



(See, he's real!)

Birroc

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I will die for you.

Thank you. You won't be sorry.

Flamed Diving

Birroc wrote: »

Thank you. You won't be sorry.

That's what my last messiah said... but I have a good feeling about you.

Birroc

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That's what my last messiah said... but I have a good feeling about you.

I love giving good feelings.