Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How can we know that God is?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Alien View Post

    I'm picking this post because it sort of started this particular discussion. All opinions requested.

    Some time ago I decided to try to determine if God existed and if so if he wanted to communicate with me. I considered various approaches.

    Scripture: All religions have some form of "holy books" that they consider to support their beliefs. Which one should I read? All of them? The Bible is very confusing, fair enough, so ask Bible "experts". There are as many opinions on what the Bible means as their are "experts" (OK exaggeration, but there's huge disagreement about what even the most basic things mean). Try to find something common to all the writings? See above. Trust the Bible because it was inspired by God? That's circular, I have to find God first.

    Ask "people" as Mossy suggests: But they all disagree! David Koresh convinced a lot of people I hear. Who has the "right" answer?

    Explore the various "proofs" put forward by apologists: I didn't find any that that stood up to logical analysis, or supported anything but a vague deism.

    So, I tried to apply my own logic to the problem. If I hear a claim that a person exists and can't find him anywhere, what to do? Well, why not try to get him to respond in some way. Then, if he responds, I can ask more questions. Makes sense, no? So I did. I prayed. I didn't hear any voices, but received what seemed to be evidence in my own life. So I continued praying, seemed to feel some kind of "presence", joined a church, got quite into it, though when they recited the creed I stayed silent for most of it.

    After some years, it all faded away. I got bored with church, stopped feeling any "presence" and gradually returned to my vague atheism, though, to my pleasure, I no longer had the urge to argue with believers or try to convince anyone of anything. That sense of peace in the knowledge that nobody is really sure of anything in religion was in itself worth the effort I put into it all.

    To my point, if God doesn't communicate with us directly and clearly, and bearing in mind the (perceived) weakness of the other approaches, what Is a sincere open minded "seeker" to do?
    Have you considered doing drugs? I hear Ayahuasca produces significant spiritual experiences.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

      Get back to me when you can suggest something that hasn't been beaten into a fine pink mist.
      Nevertheless, that fact remains that the least probable explanation for a missing body is that “it must have resurrected”. And the ‘empty tomb wasn’t ever mentioned by Paul. It didn’t rate a reference in scripture until 40 years after the fact in Mark i.e., two decades after Paul wrote his Epistles.

      You mean like the opening to I Corinthians 15? And when we look at Acts, we can see that this message was one that Paul taught wherever he went.
      When we look to the ‘little creed’ of 1 Cor. 15 as quoted by Paul we see accounts of “appearances” of Jesus, not bodily physical experiences just as in the Damascene vision which Paul recounts as “And last of all, He appeared also to me, as to one of untimely birth…”

      During his first missionary journey, Paul preached Jesus’s resurrection and used the appearances to the disciples to substantiate that resurrection (Acts 13:26-31). Jesus’ resurrection featured prominently in Paul’s preaching in Thessalonica (Acts 17:3), Athens (17:31), and Corinth (note how I Corinthians 15:1 makes it clear Paul is repeating what he taught when he was there a couple of years earlier).
      Not in Paul’s own writings apart from the ‘little creed’ of 1 Cor. 15 – see above.

      Last edited by Tassman; 06-14-2022, 12:14 AM.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

        Nevertheless, that fact remains that the least probable explanation for a missing body is that “it must have resurrected”. And the ‘empty tomb wasn’t ever mentioned by Paul. It didn’t rate a reference in scripture until 40 years after the fact in Mark i.e., two decades after Paul wrote his Epistles.
        Paul said that Christ died, he revived, he lived. What need is there to point out the obvious implication of that statement?



        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

          Nevertheless, that fact remains that the least probable explanation for a missing body is that “it must have resurrected”. And the ‘empty tomb wasn’t ever mentioned by Paul. It didn’t rate a reference in scripture until 40 years after the fact in Mark i.e., two decades after Paul wrote his Epistles.
          You sound like someone who, after being shown exactly how something works, continues to disagree, insisting that it would make more sense to you if it worked completely differently.

          As noted, this objection has been dealt with time and time again, it would behoove you to look back at some of these times and focus on the terminal rebuttals rather than just repeating the same thing like a broken record.

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          When we look to the ‘little creed’ of 1 Cor. 15 as quoted by Paul we see accounts of “appearances” of Jesus, not bodily physical experiences just as in the Damascene vision which Paul recounts as “And last of all, He appeared also to me, as to one of untimely birth…”
          You've tried hanging your hat on that argument before. It failed then so why do you suppose that it would work now?

          The creedal statement, which scholars agree dates back to within a few years of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, isn't meant as a full detailed dissertation. Merely seeing a non-physical image would not convince someone that the person had been resurrected. They would figure they had encountered a ghost, and dealing with the dead was an abomination (Deuteronomy 18:11-12).

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Not in Paul’s own writings apart from the ‘little creed’ of 1 Cor. 15 – see above.
          Yes, a secondary confirmatory source validating what Paul wrote in I Corinthians. What is your point?

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

            Paul said that Christ died, he revived, he lived. What need is there to point out the obvious implication of that statement?


            I have to wonder which works of Scripture Tas is thinking about in between Paul's epistles and Mark that the Resurrection should be written about in.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

              Paul said that Christ died, he revived, he lived. What need is there to point out the obvious implication of that statement?
              But no physical body - as claimed by the decades later gospels. To this day Christians believe that Jesus lives in their hearts – as did Paul at his Damascene experience of Jesus.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                But no physical body
                "Jesus lived" says otherwise.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                  The creedal statement, which scholars agree dates back to within a few years of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, isn't meant as a full detailed dissertation.
                  And in Paul’s presentation of the ‘little creed’ (which we agree dates back much nearer to the crucifixion) he compares it with his own experience of Jesus’ on the Damascus Rd, whereby Jesus did NOT appear before him as a physical body.

                  Yes, a secondary confirmatory source validating what Paul wrote in I Corinthians.
                  Yes. The ‘little creed’ is the primary source. But it is only in the secondary sources, i.e., the gospels, written 40 plus years after the death of Jesus - that we get mention of Jesus’ fleshly body having resurrected. This is NOT what we get in the ‘little creed’ OR Paul’s Damascene experience of the resurrected Jesus.

                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                    And in Paul’s presentation of the ‘little creed’ (which we agree dates back much nearer to the crucifixion) he compares it with his own experience of Jesus’ on the Damascus Rd, whereby Jesus did NOT appear before him as a physical body.
                    Paul had an encounter with the flesh and blood Jesus. Whether that encounter was face to face or remotely is immaterial to his argument.



                    Yes. The ‘little creed’ is the primary source. But it is only in the secondary sources, i.e., the gospels, written 40 plus years after the death of Jesus - that we get mention of Jesus’ fleshly body having resurrected. This is NOT what we get in the ‘little creed’ OR Paul’s Damascene experience of the resurrected Jesus.
                    “[that] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

                    You may consider it proper to ignore anything else Paul may have had to say about the resurrected Christ, I do not. Your argument relies on interpreting an (imagined) ambiguity in Paul's writing to conflict with the body of evidence available from some other passages in Paul's writing (and other authors).

                    Paul flatly stated "For to this end Christ died and lived* again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living."

                    {{* lived: In the Koine Greek, εζησεν: present tense - he lives.}}
                    Last edited by tabibito; 06-15-2022, 12:24 AM.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      Paul had an encounter with the flesh and blood Jesus. Whether that encounter was face to face or remotely is immaterial to his argument.
                      Acts of the Apostles, written some decades after the death of Paul, gives us three different accounts of Paul's vision. None of which was a physical, flesh and blood Jesus as depicted in the gospels. And yet Paul clearly believed it was Jesus’ voice that he (and he alone) heard. This vision on the road to Damascus informs his understanding of the 1 Cor 15 creed in which he includes himself as someone to whom Jesus “appeared”.

                      “[that] Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
                      “…and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. We know this was not a physical event given that none of those with Paul saw Jesus.

                      You may consider it proper to ignore anything else Paul may have had to say about the resurrected Christ, I do not. Your argument relies on interpreting an (imagined) ambiguity in Paul's writing to conflict with the body of evidence available from some other passages in Paul's writing (and other authors).

                      Paul flatly stated "For to this end Christ died and lived* again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living."

                      {{* lived: In the Koine Greek, εζησεν: present tense - he lives.}
                      Yes, “he lives” in the hearts of those that believed in him - as Christians then and now acknowledge.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                        Acts of the Apostles, written some decades after the death of Paul, gives us three different accounts of Paul's vision. None of which was a physical, flesh and blood Jesus as depicted in the gospels.
                        Acts 9:3 suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.” 7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

                        Acts 22:9 - “And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me. {{I've been present during other people's phone calls when the voice on the other end was audible but not comprehensible. Will you argue that there was no real flesh and blood person on the other end during those calls? Paul is not cited as claiming to have seen anyone here.}}

                        Acts 26:14 - " when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’" {{In this report, Paul is not cited as saying he saw anyone.}}


                        Not surprisingly, one account or another reports particulars that are not part of the basic account, and information regarding whether or not there was a physical person on the other end of the "call" is not in any of them. In the ordinary course, that would indicate that a real person had actually been involved.

                        And yet Paul clearly believed it was Jesus’ voice that he (and he alone) heard.
                        Incorrect - the accounts show that a voice was heard, but not understood. Do you have information about this encounter that is not available from scripture?

                        This vision on the road to Damascus informs his understanding of the 1 Cor 15 creed in which he includes himself as someone to whom Jesus “appeared”.


                        That might indicate that Paul had another encounter at some other time, or that the accounts in Acts are, even in combination, incomplete. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the word translated as "appeared" is an English grammar friendly rendering of the Koine Greek "got seen."

                        “…and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. We know this was not a physical event given that none of those with Paul saw Jesus.
                        "We know" nothing of the sort. We infer that it was not a physical encounter, which can be accepted. A conversation on a phone or by Skype is likewise not a physical encounter - but it makes no difference to the fact that the participants are real flesh and blood people (in the ordinary course).

                        Yes, “he lives” in the hearts of those that believed in him - as Christians then and now acknowledge.
                        Surely you jest. Latter day pop theology informs your understanding?
                        Last edited by tabibito; 06-15-2022, 05:41 AM.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          Paul said that Christ died, he revived, he lived. What need is there to point out the obvious implication of that statement?
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          But no physical body - as claimed by the decades later gospels. To this day Christians believe that Jesus lives in their hearts – as did Paul at his Damascene experience of Jesus.
                          Some folks just ain't all that sharp.



                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                            Incorrect - the accounts show that a voice was heard, but not understood.
                            The author of Acts makes it quite clear as to whose voice Saul was apparently hearing
                            Acts 9:5. ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὃν σὺ διώκεις.
                            Acts 22:8 ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος7 ὃν σὺ διώκεις
                            Acts 26:15 ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὃν σὺ διώκεις..


                            Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 06-15-2022, 06:25 AM.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              The author of acts makes it quite clear as to whose voice Saul was apparently hearing
                              Acts 9:5. ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὃν σὺ διώκεις.
                              Acts 22:8 ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος7 ὃν σὺ διώκεις
                              Acts 26:15 ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὃν σὺ διώκεις..


                              Context ... my comment was a reference to the bystanders、addressing Tassman's reference to the same.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                                Context ... my comment was a reference to the bystanders、addressing Tassman's reference to the same.
                                Context:

                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                                And yet Paul clearly believed it was Jesus’ voice that he (and he alone) heard.
                                To which you replied:

                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                                Incorrect - the accounts show that a voice was heard, but not understood.


                                There is no mention of bystanders in that section of your reply.

                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,507 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X