Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

hinault · 11-03-2015 11:27PM

orubiru wrote: »

OK. Lets say that it was a total logistical nightmare.

Theres no way these documents could have been moved freely from place to place.

We dont know which documents you mean though.

Can you list the documents, authors, locations and time of writing?

From this link http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

To date, over 5800 Greek New Testament fragments have been found (Taylor, 2012).
The earliest are in fragments that cover a substantial amount of the New Testament.

5,800 refers to the earliest texts of the New Testament.

There are over 25,000 texts found of the New Testament after the 2nd century to 16th century (16th century being the time when mass produced Bibles became viable)

The older manuscripts are very important because there are fewer copies between them and the one first written. The span between the original writing and the earliest copy is minimal when compared to others in ancient writing. “We have copies commencing within a couple of generations from the writing of the originals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the original and the earliest surviving copy,” (Strobel, 1998). By comparison, the average classical author has at least a 500-year gap between the writing of the original and the earliest copy

Papyrus 52 (P52), which contains a small fragment of John’s gospel, (18.31-33, 37-38) is considered to be the earliest copy of New Testament text. Discovered in 1934 by C. H. Roberts, it is believed to have been copied no later than 150 AD but no earlier than 100 AD. “Nothing is unreasonable about assigning a date of 100-125 for P52. If John’s gospel was written in the 70’s or 80’s, we have a fragment 20-25 years removed form the autograph” (Comfort & Barret, 2001). Newly discovered fragments from Egypt have been recently found, one of which may date to the first century. The oldest piece contains verses from Mark’s gospel. The others, dating into the second century have portions of Luke’s gospel and letters from Paul. One fragment contains a sermon from Hebrews 11. The contents of these fragments are still being examined and subjected to dating methods. Scholars hope to publish their findings by late 2013 or early 2014 (Wallace, 2012).

There are 10-15 manuscripts written within the first 100 years of the completion of the New Testament. Some are fairly large fragments, containing significant portions of the gospels or the letters of Paul. When we go out two centuries from the original writings (300 AD), there are at least 48 manuscripts. At three centuries (400 AD), there are 69 copies.

“For more than two centuries, most biblical scholars have declared that no essential affirmation has been affected by the variants” (Taylor, 2012).
In their attempts to recover the originals, textual critics have recovered at least 95% of the inspired words.

Some even go farther, placing the number as high as 99%.

Scholars such as Philip Comfort have ascertained that while there are differing conclusions on some of the variants in the manuscripts, “this is, by no means, a large number… And this should not cause us to abandon the task of recovering the original wording of the New Testament. New insights have come and will keep coming, in the new form of actual documents, new methodologies, and new understandings” (Comfort P. W., 2005).

Another scholar writes, “The verbal agreement between various New Testament manuscripts is closer than between many English translations of the New Testament and the percentage of variants in the New Testament is small…and no matter of doctrine hinges on a variant reading” (Wegner, 2006).

Think about the first part of Wegner’s statement. There are thousands of Greek manuscripts available, coming from different times and places. They agree more often than our English translations! Amazing!

galljga1 · 11-03-2015 11:27PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I've already stated that I'm done with this thread. I won't give the bible any more weight than it deserves, which is little to none. As for a god experience...I don't know. I'm thinking of several possibilities, but each one has weaknesses since I would be skeptical of them.
I won't be replying again Cen taurus. My mind's made up, since there's nothing a christian can say to me that would convince me. They can't use the bible, since I've completely ruled that out. Any god experiences they tell me about I can't use as evidence, since those experiences are subjective to them and I can't examine. I haven't myself had a god experience (of any kind). The typical christian arguments from emotion don't work on me.
Write me off as a lost cause if you want. It matters not to me.

What you need mate is........mushrooms.

hinault · 11-03-2015 11:36PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I've already stated that I'm done with this thread. I won't give the bible any more weight than it deserves, which is little to none. As for a god experience...I don't know. I'm thinking of several possibilities, but each one has weaknesses since I would be skeptical of them.
I won't be replying again Cen taurus. My mind's made up, since there's nothing a christian can say to me that would convince me. They can't use the bible, since I've completely ruled that out. Any god experiences they tell me about I can't use as evidence, since those experiences are subjective to them and I can't examine. I haven't myself had a god experience (of any kind). The typical christian arguments from emotion don't work on me.
Write me off as a lost cause if you want. It matters not to me.

Well you added little or nothing to this thread anyhow, so your departure from this thread is immaterial.

If you do decide to try posting on this thread, I won't hesitate to remind you about your (latest) flounce.

galljga1 · 11-03-2015 11:38PM

hinault wrote: »

From this link http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

5,800 refers to the earliest texts of the New Testament.

There are over 25,000 texts found of the New Testament after the 2nd century to 16th century (16th century being the time when mass produced Bibles became viable)

Is this supposed to state that textually exact documents were written in different locations by different people at the same time? I really do not see that.

orubiru · 11-03-2015 11:52PM

hinault wrote: »

From this link http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

5,800 refers to the earliest texts of the New Testament.

There are over 25,000 texts found of the New Testament after the 2nd century to 16th century (16th century being the time when mass produced Bibles became viable)

I will read it (and the other links you posted). Much appreciated.

orubiru · 11-03-2015 11:59PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Whenever you answer the questions I asked you. In case you try pretending you forgot them again, look them up, try another dodge, and then I'll keep posting them for you.

Thats a little unfair. I think you were asked a valid question.

How about this Cen taurus, why not just post the questions you asked again? Or maybe just one of the questions and then another when you get an answer to the first and so on?

You did this to me too. I asked you to just list the claims that were made that you wanted explained but you just quoted my own text back to me and I honestly couldn't see what was a claim and what was just a question or a general statement.

It was very difficult to get any content out of you besides "ad hominem" and fallacy this fallacy that. Theres no value in it.

I am genuinely interested in the answer to the question you were asked.

Cen taurus · 12-03-2015 12:03AM

orubiru wrote: »

Thats a little unfair. I think you were asked a valid question.

How about this Cen taurus, why not just post the questions you asked again? .

Because I've done so seveal times and every time the poster refuses, so their questions get the same respect they give.

orubiru wrote: »

You did this to me too. I asked you to just list the claims that were made that you wanted explained but you just quoted my own text back to me and I honestly couldn't see what was a claim and what was just a question or a general statement.

You already tried denying that several times, so I kept posting your post it, then you kept asking for it to be posted again claiming it wasn't posted.

You can play all the games you wan't, I'm not obliged to play along with them.

orubiru · 12-03-2015 12:21AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

If that claim is true, what kind God experience would be evidence, and why would it be evidence ?

Is it OK if I give an answer to this?

I would accept witnessing a dialogue between God and Man where both sides answer for their wrong doing. There would need to be many witnesses to this. It would have to be in plain language. No nonsense, tricks or ambiguity.

I wont accept a personal experience. It would have to be more than one experience that I could corroborate with others.

If the being claiming to be God shows compassion and gives sincere apology for Its numerous screw ups then I would hold up my hands and say "well, I believe in that".

If Man cannot understand God then fair enough. All the evidence implies that either God does not understand, does not care, can't do anything or simply does not exist.

orubiru · 12-03-2015 12:28AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Because I've done so seveal times and every time the poster refuses, so their questions get the same respect they give.

You already tried denying that several times, so I kept posting your post it, then you kept asking for it to be posted again claiming it wasn't posted.

You can play all the games you wan't, I'm not obliged to play along with them.

And I am saying do not repost my post. I am saying why not just list my "claims" in your own words and I will see what I have to say about that.

I tried to be straight forward with you but you are being elusive as ever.

"Their questions get the same respect they give". Right, and you can't just be the bigger person and answer Marienbad's question followed by a question of your own?

I will not avoid your questions but I may ask for clarification. If you are going to respond to a request for clarification with "you can play all the games you want" then how are we ever going to understand each other?

Cen taurus · 12-03-2015 12:39AM

orubiru wrote: »

Is it OK if I give an answer to this?

I would accept witnessing a dialogue between God and Man where both sides answer for their wrong doing. There would need to be many witnesses to this. It would have to be in plain language. No nonsense, tricks or ambiguity.

I wont accept a personal experience. It would have to be more than one experience that I could corroborate with others.

If the being claiming to be God shows compassion and gives sincere apology for Its numerous screw ups then I would hold up my hands and say "well, I believe in that".

If Man cannot understand God then fair enough. All the evidence implies that either God does not understand, does not care, can't do anything or simply does not exist.

Thank you. That's more like it. [Perhaps we might actually get a discussion going again, if people keep it about the posts and not the poster, as per the charter, avoid straw manning, and don't waste their own time constructing and presenting arguments based on tired old false premises and/or fallacies over and over again.]

Moving on . . .

The problem with a dialogue between God and Man as evidence, is that any witnesses will claim ;

(a) How do we know that Man is not having a hallucination of some type ?

(b) If it can be somehow proven its not some type of hallucination, how do we know this being is actually God, and how would it be proven to everyones satisfaction that it is actually God ?

(Considering the forum we are on, for the sake of discussion, take the definition of God, as per Theism/Christianity)

There may be other problems that you can think of as well as the two above.

You've hinted at this with the personal experience example, as even though someone might have had a genuine personal interaction with God, others will always dismiss it as a hallucination or such like.

As for evidence again, that brings us back to asking what would be actual evidence that does not run into this problem ?

I'd be genuinley interested to know if anyone has an example of any type of evidence that could overcome this. e.g. if a skeptic met God, and could ask God to produce any evidence the skeptic required, what evidence could the skeptic ask for that would prove God ?

orubiru · 12-03-2015 01:23AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Thank you. That's more like it. Perhaps we might actually get a discussion going again, if people keep it about the posts and not the poster, as per the charter, avoid straw manning, and don't waste time constructing arguments based on tired old false premises and fallacies over and over again.

The problem with a dialogue between God and Man as evidence, is that any witnesses will claim

(a) How do we know that Man is not having a hallucination of some type ?
(b) If it can be proven its not some type of hallucination, how do we know this being is actually God, and how would it be proven that its God ?

You've hinted at this with the personal experience example, as even though someone might have had a genuine personal interaction with God, others will always dismiss it as a hallucination or such like.

As for evidence again, that brings us back to asking what would be actual evidence that does not run into this problem ?

I'd be genuinley interested to know if anyone has an example of any type of evidence that could overcome this. e.g. if a skeptic met God, and could ask him to produce any evidence he wanted, what evidence could he ask him to produce to prove he was God, and why would that be evidence ?

Hm... I'd like to think we have reached a level of technological advancement where God could come up with something. So any dialogue between God and Man could be broadcast. Maybe he is only in discussion with 2 or 3 people and is using an avatar or some kind of mechanism. (I am trying to avoid things like us "being made in His image" as I very much doubt this could ever be true, why would God need all these holes!?)

So the "hallucination" angle would be removed.

Personal experience is a MAJOR problem. So it would have to be a shared, yet optional, experience.

God should know who we are by now. I dont think faith or worship or whatever should be expected. God should know what to say and how to say it.

Actual evidence. I, as a skeptic, would ask God to unlock a secret and explain it to all of us. Since we are technologically advanced it should be possible to communicate an idea like how to stop cancer cells from forming or show us how The Universe was able to start. Demonstration of knowledge beyond current Human knowledge would be pretty good.

He could even explain the whole Jesus bit and the dying for our sins. Maybe show how and why it was done. Or He could just talk us through The Bible, if it is the word of God then we probably deserve a Q & A session before we go ahead and believe it.

It depends though. This is where our language and ability to express these concepts starts to break down. This is why I can't believe in Jesus being "God as a Man" or stuff like that. It seems too convenient. Like we have an idea somewhere of what we need and we invent, or mould, or create something that fulfils that role. Then we run with it.

When we say "God" at this point what do we mean? Omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? What is the nature of our Universe? 11 dimensions? Is God infinite? What does that even really mean?

The Old Testament, for example, is that an accurate description of God? Its just so flawed and... human?

The New Testament is a bit more sensible but still you have to ask is that an accurate description of God or a human construct masquerading as an actual God?

Its like a really rubbish TV show where you think you are gonna get answers and you end up asking more questions. Then you realise "Hey! The writers were just making it up as they went along! Theres no plan here!"

Zzzzz...

Cen taurus · 12-03-2015 01:32AM

orubiru wrote: »

Hm... I'd like to think we have reached a level of technological advancement where God could come up with something. So any dialogue between God and Man could be broadcast. Maybe he is only in discussion with 2 or 3 people and is using an avatar or some kind of mechanism. (I am trying to avoid things like us "being made in His image" as I very much doubt this could ever be true, why would God need all these holes!?)

So the "hallucination" angle would be removed.

Personal experience is a MAJOR problem. So it would have to be a shared, yet optional, experience.

God should know who we are by now. I dont think faith or worship or whatever should be expected. God should know what to say and how to say it.

Actual evidence. I, as a skeptic, would ask God to unlock a secret and explain it to all of us. Since we are technologically advanced it should be possible to communicate an idea like how to stop cancer cells from forming or show us how The Universe was able to start. Demonstration of knowledge beyond current Human knowledge would be pretty good.

He could even explain the whole Jesus bit and the dying for our sins. Maybe show how and why it was done. Or He could just talk us through The Bible, if it is the word of God then we probably deserve a Q & A session before we go ahead and believe it.

It depends though. This is where our language and ability to express these concepts starts to break down. This is why I can't believe in Jesus being "God as a Man" or stuff like that. It seems too convenient. Like we have an idea somewhere of what we need and we invent, or mould, or create something that fulfils that role. Then we run with it.

When we say "God" at this point what do we mean? Omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? What is the nature of our Universe? 11 dimensions? Is God infinite? What does that even really mean?

The Old Testament, for example, is that an accurate description of God? Its just so flawed and... human?

The New Testament is a bit more sensible but still you have to ask is that an accurate description of God or a human construct masquerading as an actual God?

Its like a really rubbish TV show where you think you are gonna get answers and you end up asking more questions. Then you realise "Hey! The writers were just making it up as they went along! Theres no plan here!"

Zzzzz...

It is an interesting thought exercise.

The problem that would then arise with any sort of mass communication, was that even if people didn't claim it was mass hysteria, then we're still left with the problem that how do people prove it is actually God ?

It could indeed be God, be without faith, how do you trust God is God ?

and, for example, not some ultra advanced alien being/spirit, just pretending to be God ?

What sort of evidence would overcome this?

orubiru · 12-03-2015 01:37AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

It is an interesting thought exercise.

The problem that would then arise with any sort of mass communication, was that even if people didn't claim it was mass hysteria, then we're still left with the problem that how do people prove it is actually God ?

It could indeed be God, be without faith, how do you trust God is God ?

and for example not some ultra advanced alien, pretending to be God ?

What sort of evidence would overcome this?

At this point it would depend entirely on how one defines "God"?

Cen taurus · 12-03-2015 01:38AM

orubiru wrote: »

At this point it would depend entirely on how one defines "God"?

Well considering the forum we're in, and for the sake of discussion lets assume its theism/Christianity.

Frank Bullitt · 12-03-2015 02:38AM

hinault wrote: »

From this link http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

You referenced this site before.

A little bit of reading shows up some interesting points from it.

We take the Bible as the inerrant, inspired word of our creator. It is the only 100 % accurate record of history and the key to unlocking all archeological mysteries.

We support archeology and archeologists. However when the personal opinions of archeologists conflict with the Bible, we reject archeology.

The purpose of this website, is to offer for free, a unique, Bible based view of archeology.

Oldest possible trace of human existence that archeologists can find must be younger than 3069 BC.

The earth was created about 7593 years ago (5331 BC). Since the earth is less than 8000 years old, it is rather impossible to find any archeology older than the age of the earth.

So you see, this site meets your bias in this discussion. Some of the points above shows that the site is just plain wrong.

Saying that the earth is 7593 (nice accurate number there) is, as Dawkins out it, saying that the distance from New York to Los Angles is 8 yards. So you see, using this site as proof or backing for your argument, isn't just silly, its useless.

For anyone else who would like to see some of other "wisdom" and "evidence" from this site, go right ahead.

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-start-here.htm

Frank Bullitt · 12-03-2015 02:45AM

And here is Sam Harris, going through some of the claims mentioned about the texts and documents that have been mentioned here in this thread.

hinault · 12-03-2015 03:36AM

Gintonious wrote: »

You referenced this site before.

So you see, this site meets your bias in this discussion.

I referenced the site in an earlier post, a post discussion the age and volume of New Testament texts.

Are you disputing the statements of the people (Comfort & Barrett, Strobel, Wegner, all the other authors cited) quoted in the article?

Frank Bullitt · 12-03-2015 03:48AM

hinault wrote: »

I referenced the site in an earlier post, a post discussion the age and volume of New Testament texts.

Are you disputing the statements of the people (Comfort & Barrett, Strobel, Wegner, all the other authors cited) quoted in the article?

I am disputing your use of that site, it is full of christian bias, therefor its claims can't be taken as fact. Such as its statement that if something contradicts the bible, it is wrong.

I have not read anything from Philip W Comfort, but I am familiar with Lee Strobel, he is a christian author, so again, there is underlying bias in his work.

Don't you see the issue with using that site as a backing for your argument?

And how does this prove the existence of god, or that Jesus was god, or divine?

galljga1 · 12-03-2015 07:29AM

I have to make a simple declaration.
I have been provided with no evidence to back up Hinault's claim that textually exact Christian texts written in the 1st century were written in different locations at the same time by different people.

This is quite simply nonsense and beggars belief.

May Kermit bless you all and grant you happiness.

Delirium · 12-03-2015 11:10AM

galljga1 wrote: »

May Kermit bless you all and grant you happiness.

Please avoid using "blessings" that may be insulting/ antagonistic to some Christian posters.

Thanks for your attention.

orubiru · 12-03-2015 11:23AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Well considering the forum we're in, and for the sake of discussion lets assume its theism/Christianity.

Well, I had to think a bit on this. To be honest when I try to answer I kind of hit a wall. So expect some mindless rambling!

What would be evidence for me that Christianity was right all along?

Well, imagining that a "God" might exist is a lot easier than imagining that a specific God might exist.

If told you I believe it will rain tomorrow then you'd probably just think "OK, sure". If I told you I believe it will rain in the morning but not in the evening you might think "how can he say that for sure". If I told you that I believe it will rain between the hours of 9.02 am and 10.23am and exactly half an inch of rain will fall but only over Dublin you might want to know on what grounds I am making a claim like that. If I added a supernatural element to that claim then I think you'd be REALLY skeptical.

If the probability that a non specific "God" exists is X then the addition of specifications reduces the probability. More details mean more questions and more questions mean more skepticism. We are not born and raised in a vacuum so I know that "supernatural" events are rare or even, in a lot of peoples lives, non existent. If they are even "real" events at all. Adding a supernatural element to Gods "make up" puts a huge dent in credibility and believability.

We can go and visit places like Newgrange ourselves and so we know that there were people here and that they had beliefs long before Jesus existed.

They reckon that Newgrange is 5,000 years old so who really knows how long people had been living out there before the mound was built. If I am being honest, I don't really want to believe in a God that drowned those people in a flood because humans were misbehaving. If they were just like us then most of them would have been OK people. I imagine that they would have had some kind of relationship with The Sun and I am sure that after enough years and generations of freezing through the winter the arrival of summer days would have been something special. They would have surely loved The Sun and someone must have surely wondered "do you think The Sun loves us too?". That's just speculation though.

We do know that beliefs can emerge and mythologies can emerge and that often there are imaginative and supernatural elements to these.

We can compare Christian mythology to that of other nations and belief systems and so we can see that it is not completely unique and so we have to wonder how that specific one should be true whilst all the others are false.

So, the specificness of the Christian God increases skepticism, and makes Him seem less probable than, say, "oh it's just a force that controls everything".

Since the mythology of the Christian God is very similar to others it makes it more difficult to say well this God must be real while the other Gods are not real.

The actions attributed to the Christian God make Him appear as an utterly reprehensible character and the actions of His Church, carried out in His name, have cost so many people so much. It is very likely that I just don't want to believe something so awful could be real.

This means that when I ask myself "what would be evidence?" I find it very difficult to come up with a valid or reasonable answer. I don't want to come up with something absurd but at the same time we are talking about a specific God so it would have to be something specific.

Wow, I wrote a lot. I hope you don't mind. I went way off track too.

To receive the only evidence I can think of, that would overcome all my doubts, I would first have to die. If upon death I was judged by something, or someone, and cast into the fire for my "sins" then at that point I would believe that the Christian God was real.

And, of course, it would be too late.

If I were to get in to Heaven then I would remain skeptical because I can't see how it would be good to be there knowing all the bad stuff that goes on here. My memories and identity would have to literally be erased before I could be truly comfortable in Heaven, and before I could feel like it's "all good" with God, and that wouldn't really be "me" any more now would it?

Tl;dr? If I end up in Hell then that would be enough evidence.

marienbad · 12-03-2015 11:45AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Whenever you answer the questions I asked you. In case you try pretending you forgot them again, look them up, try another dodge, and then I'll keep posting them for you.

Lead by example then can you answer the questions asked of you ?
Did you forget them ? Or is this just your latest dodge

marienbad · 12-03-2015 11:53AM

hinault wrote: »

Well you added little or nothing to this thread anyhow, so your departure from this thread is immaterial.

If you do decide to try posting on this thread, I won't hesitate to remind you about your (latest) flounce.

I found that poster amusing, informative, and open , such a pity you couldn't be a bit more 'christian' in your attitude.

Cen taurus · 12-03-2015 11:57AM

marienbad wrote: »

Lead by example then can you answer the questions asked of you ?
Did you forget them ? Or is this just your latest dodge

You were asked the questions first, so whenever you lead by example, and answer the questions I asked you. In case you try pretending you forgot them again, look them up, try another dodge, and then I'll post this again for you.

marienbad · 12-03-2015 12:02PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

You were asked the questions first, so whenever you lead by example, and answer the questions I asked you. In case you try pretending you forgot them again, look them up, try another dodge, and then I'll post this again for you.

the ''I asked you first'' ploy ! are we back in the school playground

Is this your latest dodge to avoid answering ? What next the dog ate my homework ?

Cen taurus · 12-03-2015 12:09PM

orubiru wrote: »

Well, I had to think a bit on this. To be honest when I try to answer I kind of hit a wall. So expect some mindless rambling!

What would be evidence for me that Christianity was right all along?

Well, imagining that a "God" might exist is a lot easier than imagining that a specific God might exist.

If told you I believe it will rain tomorrow then you'd probably just think "OK, sure". If I told you I believe it will rain in the morning but not in the evening you might think "how can he say that for sure". If I told you that I believe it will rain between the hours of 9.02 am and 10.23am and exactly half an inch of rain will fall but only over Dublin you might want to know on what grounds I am making a claim like that. If I added a supernatural element to that claim then I think you'd be REALLY skeptical.

If the probability that a non specific "God" exists is X then the addition of specifications reduces the probability. More details mean more questions and more questions mean more skepticism. We are not born and raised in a vacuum so I know that "supernatural" events are rare or even, in a lot of peoples lives, non existent. If they are even "real" events at all. Adding a supernatural element to Gods "make up" puts a huge dent in credibility and believability.

We can go and visit places like Newgrange ourselves and so we know that there were people here and that they had beliefs long before Jesus existed.

They reckon that Newgrange is 5,000 years old so who really knows how long people had been living out there before the mound was built. If I am being honest, I don't really want to believe in a God that drowned those people in a flood because humans were misbehaving. If they were just like us then most of them would have been OK people. I imagine that they would have had some kind of relationship with The Sun and I am sure that after enough years and generations of freezing through the winter the arrival of summer days would have been something special. They would have surely loved The Sun and someone must have surely wondered "do you think The Sun loves us too?". That's just speculation though.

We do know that beliefs can emerge and mythologies can emerge and that often there are imaginative and supernatural elements to these.

We can compare Christian mythology to that of other nations and belief systems and so we can see that it is not completely unique and so we have to wonder how that specific one should be true whilst all the others are false.

So, the specificness of the Christian God increases skepticism, and makes Him seem less probable than, say, "oh it's just a force that controls everything".

Since the mythology of the Christian God is very similar to others it makes it more difficult to say well this God must be real while the other Gods are not real.

The actions attributed to the Christian God make Him appear as an utterly reprehensible character and the actions of His Church, carried out in His name, have cost so many people so much. It is very likely that I just don't want to believe something so awful could be real.

This means that when I ask myself "what would be evidence?" I find it very difficult to come up with a valid or reasonable answer. I don't want to come up with something absurd but at the same time we are talking about a specific God so it would have to be something specific.

Wow, I wrote a lot. I hope you don't mind. I went way off track too.

To receive the only evidence I can think of, that would overcome all my doubts, I would first have to die. If upon death I was judged by something, or someone, and cast into the fire for my "sins" then at that point I would believe that the Christian God was real.

And, of course, it would be too late.

If I were to get in to Heaven then I would remain skeptical because I can't see how it would be good to be there knowing all the bad stuff that goes on here. My memories and identity would have to literally be erased before I could be truly comfortable in Heaven, and before I could feel like it's "all good" with God, and that wouldn't really be "me" any more now would it?

Tl;dr? If I end up in Hell then that would be enough evidence.

Thanks for your post.

Well at least you had a think about what evidence you would accept, that's more than most do, and as far as I can tell it's along the lines of no evidence from this world would really suffice for you, but if anything else springs to mind, [ from yourself or any other athiest poster ] , that you would consider evidence, an why it would be evidence, I would genuinely be interested to hear it.

CT

silverharp · 12-03-2015 12:17PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

You've hinted at this with the personal experience example, as even though someone might have had a genuine personal interaction with God, others will always dismiss it as a hallucination or such like.

As for evidence again, that brings us back to asking what would be actual evidence that does not run into this problem ?

I'd be genuinley interested to know if anyone has an example of any type of evidence that could overcome this. e.g. if a skeptic met God, and could ask God to produce any evidence the skeptic required, what evidence could the skeptic ask for that would prove God ?

I'd set the bar quite high , an actual physical appearance to the global community with additional proof that its not aliens messing with us.
All man made religions have god skulking in the background where only in pre history at most Is the God stomping around on the earth. Or any nearer appearance is based on say so of small groups of devotees who don't need faith but the rest of us do....convenient that.

TheLurker · 12-03-2015 12:22PM

hinault wrote: »

5,800 refers to the earliest texts of the New Testament.

No it doesn't. The 5,800 refers to copies in Greek. Most of these copies come from after the 12th century.

A number of Christian apologetics sites are falsely reporting that these Greek manuscripts come from the 1st century, under the false notion I guess that later ones wouldn't be written in Greek.

We have only a small handful of manuscripts from the 1st and 2nd century (in Greek or anything else) and most are only fragments.

Cen taurus · 12-03-2015 12:22PM

silverharp wrote: »

I'd set the bar quite high , an actual physical appearance to the global community with additional proof that its not aliens messing with us.

That's the problem, what proof would that be though.

e.g. what proof [or evidence] could you ask God for, to prove he wasn't a very advanced alien spirit or suchlike, pretending to be God ? and why would it be evidence.

Can anyone think of any examples ?

TheLurker · 12-03-2015 12:26PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

The exact same fallacies that I identified yesterday, and that you did not reply to.

TheLurker wrote: »

I must have missed that. Can you link the post that dealt with the 'fallacies' of this conclusion. I will happily tear it apart for you.

Any update on this? I've gone back over your posts and I can't find a detail of the 'fallacies' that apply to this?

Of course there is a lot of posts, I might have missed it, and you have more knowledge of what you wrote than me.

Thanks

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments