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

Zillah

Dr. Loon wrote: »

Jakass, which is the more likely scenario regarding the resurrection?

1) Jesus existed, is crucified, and buried. Rises from the dead. Wahey.

2) Jesus existed, is crucified, and buried. Stays that way. Dead forever more. Some new preacher takes his place, and the apostles "recognise" him as Jesus, and so Jesus lives on in him and they all continue his teachings?

In reality, which is more likely? Like really? Is it number 1 or number 2?

No need for paragraphs and paragraphs, just 1 or 2?

The elephant in the room is the fact that the question is actually "Which of these two scenarios makes people feel better?"

philologos

Dr. Loon wrote: »

Jakass, which is the more likely scenario regarding the resurrection?

1) Jesus existed, is crucified, and buried. Rises from the dead. Wahey.

2) Jesus existed, is crucified, and buried. Stays that way. Dead forever more. Some new preacher takes his place, and the apostles "recognise" him as Jesus, and so Jesus lives on in him and they all continue his teachings?

In reality, which is more likely? Like really? Is it number 1 or number 2?

No need for paragraphs and paragraphs, just 1 or 2?

King Mob already put this point to me, and I said given the circumstances number 1 is more likely.

Number 2 is flawed in that it rejects both the time period the disciples were given the verify that it was actually Jesus, and it is flawed in that it assumes that the disciples would keep going for a lie. They would have had to know it was a lie, because Jesus 3 times said that He was going to die and be raised on the third day.

As for mistaking him, I've already explained to King Mob, that there were numerous checks and balances involved. It wasn't one person for a start, and secondly, Jesus had a lot of time with the disciples before the ascension (40 days) to determine whether or not he was a fraud or not.

I'd recommend that others re-read my posts rather than rehashing stuff I've already gone through.

Zillah indeed: The second would make people feel better, because they wouldn't have to deal with the implications of the Gospel being true.

Probably not what you meant though :pac:

King Mob wrote: »

Your argument that the apostle's devotion after the resurrection shows that it happened however is not such evidence.
It mainly consists of an argument from incredulity, that you cannot think of a reason why they would do so otherwise.
This isn't evidence it's a logical fallacy.

It requires explanation. That's the entire point. Again, the "argument from incredulity" line is null and void, because it is the very criteria you are using to assess Christianity itself. Unless, your approach is of essence, a logical fallacy?

Dr. Loon

Jakass, you missed a ket point in my questions... In reality. Reality.
You cannot reaonably say, a resurrectiion is the more likely of the 2. If you do, then you're deluded.

If you're not going to consider reality then we'll get nowhere.

Which is more likely;
1) My wife is in bed sleeping. I go out, come back and she's gone. She must have vanished from the face of the earth.

2) My wife is in bed sleeping. I go out, come back, she's gone. She must have gone out without letting me know where she went.

It's the same idea. You're jumping from to a fantastical supernatural conclusion, while I would assume the MOST LIKELY IN REALITY. If reality isn't part of your considerations, then this discussion is pointless. You can claim any supernatural even you want, but reality will always win the day for us here!

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

It requires explanation. That's the entire point. Again, the "argument from incredulity" line is null and void, because it is the very criteria you are using to assess Christianity itself. Unless, your approach is of essence, a logical fallacy?

No, because I am not using the argument "I don't see how any other explanation works"
You are.

My argument is and always has been: there is insufficient evidence to support the idea of a resurrection.

Just saying other explanations don't work or don't count is not evidence.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

They would have had to know it was a lie, because Jesus 3 times said that He was going to die and be raised on the third day.

Um, [citation needed]

philologos

Dr. Loon - I believe that the Resurrection happened in reality. As a Christian there is very little other option. If God exists in reality, then it is quite conceivable that He could produce such an outcome.

It is only if one holds the equally unverifiable belief, that everything must be material, and that the immaterial does not exist, that one can absolutely say that it is absurd that miracles could occur.

As far as I am concerned, it is you who isn't considering the full reality of the way things are in the universe. I.E - An immaterial reality as well as a material one.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

It is only if one holds the equally unverifiable belief, that everything must be material, and that the immaterial does not exist, that one can absolutely say that it is absurd that miracles could occur.

Can you say exactly what you mean by "material" and "immaterial"?

koHd

I have tested for the existence of God.

There is no God.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Can you say exactly what you mean by "material" and "immaterial"?

immaterial = having no material body or form.
If I were to explain it slightly better I might say that it involves metaphysics.
metaphysical = reality outside or beyond immediate sense perception, reality that exists beyond the physical world.
material = the physical things most immediate to sense perception, having material body and form and so on.

It appears that if we are going to discuss about how much one views or the others pertains to reality, we first need to understand what reality is.

Beruthiel

Jakkass wrote: »

Dr. Loon - I believe that the Resurrection happened in reality. As a Christian there is very little other option. If God exists in reality, then it is quite conceivable that He could produce such an outcome.

My niece believes, in her reality, that the tooth fairy and Santa exist.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

immaterial = having no material body or form.
If I were to explain it slightly better I might say that it involves metaphysics.
metaphysical = reality outside or beyond immediate sense perception, reality that exists beyond the physical world.
material = the physical things most immediate to sense perception, having material body and form and so on.

It appears that if we are going to discuss about how much one views or the others pertains to reality, we first need to understand what reality is.

Immaterial: Gravity, Magnetism and other forces, they exist and yet have no "material body or form" and are immediately detectable by our senses.
We can show that they exist.

philologos

Beruthiel wrote: »

My niece believes, in her reality, that the tooth fairy and Santa exist.

Fantastic. I've already been through with King Mob as to why this is an inaccurate comparison:

It's reasonable, despite your comparisons, to hold the belief that there is a cause for why we are here. In philosophy the question is put "Why is there something rather than nothing?". Irrespective of your ridicule, this is a reasonable question to ask, and it is and will be a question that people will continue to ask.

If one wants to ignore such a position that is your choice. However, for most people it is reasonable to hold the position that there was a starting cause to all that we come to know.

Belief in God is about as much a fairytale as your belief in the material world. You're pretty much applying the same reasoning that Berkeley used to the material world, to God. It does not always mean that this reasoning is useful, pragmatic, or indeed in accord to reality.

King Mob: One cannot even absolutely prove that the material world exists. Yet out of pragmatism we generally regard this as being the case. The best we can do, is understand that we can perceive things through the senses. However, mere perception isn't the same as tangible existence outside of the senses. All we can know is that certain sense perceptions are tangible to us, I.E those of space, time, appearance, sound, touch and so on. Yet, it would be very unreasonable to live as if this were the case.

Gravity is only the result of changing sense perceptions if we cannot absolutely establish whether or not this material world exists, or just appears to exist!

Isn't philosophy great? :pac:

Dr. Loon

Jakkass wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, it is you who isn't considering the full reality of the way things are in the universe. I.E - An immaterial reality as well as a material one.

This statement is so wrong I don't know what to say. Because I consider the facts of the universe as we know them, I am not considering the way things "are" in the universe? You know this is the way things are how?

If you were to take away all the surrounding hearsay and stories from the Bible, which would be the more likely scenario in my original proposition? Taking actual reality as we know it into account.

You appear to be denying reality, in order to continue in your belief, like oh so many others.

philologos

What is reality?

To me it appears that you are denying reality concerning God's existence. So who is right?

Firing accusations of denying reality are pretty much useless in this discussion as they don't establish anything. All it is is a declaration of "I'm right and you're wrong".

That's fantastic, but you've yet to provide reasoning as to why.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob: One cannot even absolutely prove that the material world exists. Yet out of pragmatism we generally regard this as being the case. The best we can do, is understand that we can perceive things through the senses. However, mere perception isn't the same as tangible existence outside of the senses. All we can know is that certain sense perceptions are tangible to us, I.E those of space, time, appearance, sound, touch and so on. Yet, it would be very unreasonable to live as if this were the case.

Gravity is only the result of changing sense perceptions if we cannot absolutely establish whether or not this material world exists, or just appears to exist!

Isn't philosophy great? :pac:

So you can't prove the material world so therefore immaterial stuff we can't prove exists.
Right....

I don't see how you logic doesn't extend to other made up stuff.

But if God is outside your senses and therefore cannot be shown to exist or even indicate he exists (because that would make him inside our senses) how do you know he exists?

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

So you can't prove the material world so therefore immaterial stuff we can't prove exists.
Right....

I'm merely suggesting, that in numerous other areas of our dealings we are in the same predicament as in the God debate, yet the same logic you applies isn't always the outcome.

Why do you think this is?

King Mob wrote: »

But if God is outside your senses and therefore cannot be shown to exist or even indicate he exists (because that would make him inside our senses) how do you know he exists?

I never said cannot be shown to exist. His existence can be argued for by indication. However, one cannot absolutely prove His existence. Pretty much in the same way as one can argue for the existence of material things by indication, but one cannot absolutely prove that they exist.

There are a number of factors that I have come to for arguing for God's existence. The most convincing to me personally, involves personal experience which naturally isn't the most communicable.

Dr. Loon

Jakkass wrote: »

What is reality?

To me it appears that you are denying reality concerning God's existence. So who is right?

Firing accusations of denying reality are pretty much useless in this discussion as they don't establish anything. All it is is a declaration of "I'm right and you're wrong".

That's fantastic, but you've yet to provide reasoning as to why.

Reality is what we can see, and what can be proven, it's what actually happens day in day out. There's the reasoning. Let's not get all airy and vague and philosophical here. I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong". I'm telling you what reality is as we know it, as you know it. It can be proven, touched, witnessed and verified.

When all those fools in Knock damaged their retinas staring at the sun do you think that a) they saw the Virgin Mary, or b) the effects of staring at the sun caused hallucinations. Which is the more likely in reality? Key words - more likely and reality.

When someone dies, we do not witness their soul rise to heaven or descend to hell. They are dead. You can say that their soul has gone to another place, but it involves suspension of belief. All you're doing is supposing something. It involves the belief that this has happened, there's no evidence based in reality to tell us it has happened, or indeed, can happen. This is reality - as we know it. You're supposng that resurrection can happen, but it's not based in reality as we - the human race - know it.

Which is the more likely in the scenario I put forth involving my wife?

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely suggesting, that in numerous other areas of our dealings we are in the same predicament as in the God debate, yet the same logic you applies isn't always the outcome.

Why do you think this is?

I can demonstrate gravity.
Why can't you demonstrate God?

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said cannot be shown to exist. His existence can be argued for by indication. However, one cannot absolutely prove His existence. Pretty much in the same way as one can argue for the existence of material things by indication, but one cannot absolutely prove that they exist.

Then if his existence can be argued for by evidence, he is not by definition immaterial.

And you keep banging on about proof, when I''ve been very clear on this subject.
And I fail to see how this argument doesn't apply to any other fictional character.

Jakkass wrote: »

There are a number of factors that I have come to for arguing for God's existence. The most convincing to me personally, involves personal experience which naturally isn't the most communicable.

And there is the problem.
Personal experience is not evidence for anything.

Personal experience is frankly worthless in discovering the truth.

There's millions and millions of people out there who've had personal experiences with infinite number of things.
Are their experiences valid?

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely suggesting, that in numerous other areas of our dealings we are in the same predicament as in the God debate, yet the same logic you applies isn't always the outcome.

Why do you think this is?

I never said cannot be shown to exist. His existence can be argued for by indication. However, one cannot absolutely prove His existence. Pretty much in the same way as one can argue for the existence of material things by indication, but one cannot absolutely prove that they exist.

There are a number of factors that I have come to for arguing for God's existence. The most convincing to me personally, involves personal experience which naturally isn't the most communicable.

You answered the question in bold in your own post. The reason why in some of our dealings we come to conclusions of definite existence (or as near as you can be) and others we dont is that we dont accept personal experience as a reliable indication for what exists.
Your main reason for believing in god is through personal experience, but your argument, here, against a solely materialistic world is the fallibility of personal perception. Can you see the intellectual dishonesty here? The hypocrisy?

philologos

King Mob - To me it is the most convincing factor. If I hadn't experienced profound change in my life as a response to the Gospel, I would probably be in the same situation as you are. Indeed, if I hadn't also began to notice it in the lives of other Christians, I would have no basis for accepting that God can have any tangible place in the reality, the here and now as well as 2,000 odd years ago.

To an individual, such experiences do count as evidence for God being true. To others, naturally it doesn't as one cannot verify such experiences unless one has a knowledge of what is being described.

This is why a good few pages ago I said this of what would convince me to ditch Christianity:

To be honest with you, it would have to be fairly rigorous given what I've been through in the last few years. However, if one could make a solid case as to why the Resurrection did not happen, it would undermine the central position in Christianity:

It took a lot of thought for me to get to where I am now, equally it would take a lot of thought to make a case for atheism to me. I just don't find it reasonable, it makes very little sense to me to hold the position that you currently do. The Resurrection is only one ground by which I find it unreasonable.

I probably won't be back on this for a while, as I have an exam tomorrow that I really should be studying for, and unfortunately it isn't on the case or lack thereof for the Christian faith!

liamw

In fairness King Mob, he has admitted that all he has is indicatory evidence.

We may be willing to accept indictory evidence for something which adheres to natural scientific laws, but it just doesn't cut it for a supernatural event unless you can completely dismiss every natural explanation.

Without proof, we can only have probability. And this is where I think Jakkass' argument falls, because given a gap and multiple possibilities, he treats the supernatural one with as much liklihood as any other natural one.

The reason seem to be that the existence of God makes the supernatual explanation more likely, but the occurance of the Resurrection makes God more likely to exist. Circular argument.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

King Mob - To me it is the most convincing factor. If I hadn't experienced profound change in my life as a response to the Gospel, I would probably be in the same situation as you are. Indeed, if I hadn't also began to notice it in the lives of other Christians, I would have no basis for accepting that God can have any tangible place in the reality, the here and now as well as 2,000 odd years ago.

To an individual, such experiences do count as evidence for God being true. To others, naturally it doesn't as one cannot verify such experiences unless one has a knowledge of what is being described.

This is why a good few pages ago I said this of what would convince me to ditch Christianity:


It took a lot of thought for me to get to where I am now, equally it would take a lot of thought to make a case for atheism to me. I just don't find it reasonable, it makes very little sense to me to hold the position that you currently do. The Resurrection is only one ground by which I find it unreasonable.

And the exact same argument can be used for Mormonism (just replace the key words, and resurrection for golden plates ) or for Scientology, or any number of religions you don't believe in.

You haven't provide any evidence for you position, just that you reject other possibilities for the resurrection because you already believe in supernatural events.
This is not a good way to get to the truth.

Jakkass wrote: »

I probably won't be back on this for a while, as I have an exam tomorrow that I really should be studying for, and unfortunately it isn't on the case or lack thereof for the Christian faith!

Good luck, I hope you did more than pray

bnt

How did this thread get to ten pages? I haven't posted here before because I honestly don't care about mere existence. It's not sufficient for something to exist: what good does it do? Even if the Judeo-Christian god exists, what's it actually doing? There might be a teapot orbiting around Mars, but if there is it's made of chocolate. :rolleyes:

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Isn't philosophy great?

Not when it's used to obscure a discussion.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

What is reality?

To me it appears that you are denying reality concerning God's existence. So who is right?

I think this highlights one of the problems that seems to exist in terms of debate between atheists and theists, which is that theists see God's existence as an axiom and atheists as a truth proposition. It explains how both sides find it so hard to see the others perspective...

As an analogy, take the following two people:

Person A: "All swans are white" (axiom)
Person B: "All swans are white" (hypothesis)

Imagine the different thinking between these two people when a black swan is found.

Person B: "Ah, the hypothesis was wrong, kind of surprising given all the white swans I've seen. All I can say now is most swans are white"
Person A: "That must be a new species of bird, since it can't be a swan because all swans are white".

How do these people "debate" this? In one person's view, there is clear, verifiable evidence to the contrary of the statement. To the other, their acceptance of the initial axiom requires that there is simply a new species of bird that has all the characteristics of a swan, but is black.

This sort of characterises the theism/atheism debate in a way.

Once the "God exists" is accepted axiomatically as a foundational step, then the outlook on what constitutes "reality" is quite different. Miracles are possible. Events that seem to defy rational and material explanation have a readily available answer. In this way, supernatural explanations for things are elevated from "impossible" to merely "implausible", a level where they can freely be mixed with other, natural, explanations.

Of course this seems totally irrational to atheists, since the initial "God Exists" question is treated as any another truth proposition, and one for which there is no real evidence.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Fantastic. I've already been through with King Mob as to why this is an inaccurate comparison:


King Mob: One cannot even absolutely prove that the material world exists. Yet out of pragmatism we generally regard this as being the case. The best we can do, is understand that we can perceive things through the senses. However, mere perception isn't the same as tangible existence outside of the senses. All we can know is that certain sense perceptions are tangible to us, I.E those of space, time, appearance, sound, touch and so on. Yet, it would be very unreasonable to live as if this were the case.

Gravity is only the result of changing sense perceptions if we cannot absolutely establish whether or not this material world exists, or just appears to exist!

I would go one further and say you cannot prove, even to yourself, that you exist. But I don't see how this is important. The question of why should there be something rather than nothing is as answerable as "Why should there be a God rather than no God?". So far, no theologian or philosopher has made any progress on such a question. I don't see them as particularly important questions either.

Isn't philosophy great? :pac:

We scientists aren't always fond of it.

ThousandLeaves

Can't believe I'm actually contributing to this but I'm supposed to be studying so what are you gonna do...

Anyway, based on my (pretty limited) experience of dealing with history and historical texts, that particular event is not one of the best documented in history and though the Bible would definitely qualify as a useful source, it's one that I'd be careful with considering the potential for bias.

It's entirely possible given the existing sources that Jesus was executed and rose from the dead. Suggesting that the actions of the apostles in the aftermath make this a more likely explanation doesn't sit well with me.

There's a decent consensus as to why World War I started and why it developed into the kind of war it did, but there's still a considerable amount of debate, mainly because the cultural environment has changed and all the major actors are dead. Ascribing motives to people when there's a fair amount of time and cultural distance between you and them has do be done very cautiously. Jerusalem in the 1st century AD looks to have been very different culturally from Ireland today so whether or not people's motivations make sense in today's context isn't much to go on. Whether they make sense based on what the culture of the time seems to have been is a bit better but still iffy considering how patchy sources are for even the well documented bits of history.

One possible explanation that makes a lot of sense to me is that Jesus' desciples very much wanted to believe that his prophecy would be fulfilled and hence may have been more inclined to believe someone, potentially with a knowlege of Jesus' teachings, who claimed to be Jesus ressurected than to doubt him, When you consider that many people in former times seem to have practiced their religeon with a fair amount of fervor and the long history of religeous devotees willingly dying for their beliefs, however dubious, the reaction of the disciples, to me, starts to look less odd.

I still wouldn't claim that this is the most likely explanation, though, because the information just isn't there, but if the ressurection reading of events is part of a broader set of indications that cumulatively you find convincing I'd say (somewhat) fair enough.

kiffer

I think we've run into the not too uncommon Engineer Vs. Philosopher problem...

I remember having a conversation with a Philosophy student the day* she realised that her subject was largely ****...

(boring post about philosophy redacted)

Tacitus on Christ? ... basically what he says is can be roughly summed up as "There's a cult calling themselves Christians running around Rome at the moment... they are named after their groups founder Christus, executed in Judea years ago... we thought we'd knocked the cult out but it keeps popping back up."


What does Pliny the Younger have to say? basically Christians worship Christ, refuse to worship Roman Gods or the Emperor, but that some people questioned said they had been Christians for a while but had stopped being Christians... that's about it... Christians existed in 112 AD (obviously), worshiped Christ and normally refused to worship Roman gods/emperor... I don't see how this shows that the man, Jesus, actually existed... anymore than the fact that at the same time people paid homage to Heracles shows that Heracles existed...

Now as it stands I think there probably was some guy called Jesus... that did some stuff... did he have magic powers miraculous powers? I see no reason to think he did... people claim all sorts of crazy things all the time.
He could even be the amalgam of two or more people... Stories grow with the telling and people exaggerate for effect, things that are meant to be symbolic in the first telling become 'factual' in later second hand retellings...


A sod it...

*may not have been the day, may have been shortly after the day.

DapperGent

Jakkass wrote:

Isn't philosophy great?

robindch wrote: »

Not when it's used to obscure a discussion.

If I could thank a thousand times.

Wacker

robindch wrote: »

Not when it's used to obscure a discussion.

As a Philosophy grad myself I can do you one better: No, it's really not great at all.