Whether humans can be righteous and meet God's standards

[Doug Shaver]

What specifically convinced you that there is no God?

I have never claimed to be convinced that there is no God. I have claimed only that I have no good reason to believe in God, and that absence of sufficient reason to believe is justification enough for not believing.

And more importantly - what would you explain as to how one knows what one knows?

We acquire knowledge through observation and the proper exercise of reason. Both are necessary and they are jointly sufficient.

How would you explain as to how to recognize truth?

We recognize a new truth by its consistency with all previously discovered truths.

[Sparko]

Nevertheless, what ended up in the gospels was based upon hearsay and passed from person to person. It would be extremely unlikely that this would be untarnished by embellishments and redactions some 40 - 70 years after the events, especially given the apologetic nature of the gospels.

you keep making these unproven claims.

First century Roman/Israeli society was illiterate; maybe 5% could read and write. So there would not be much note-taking going on.

I would say that the Jews were probably some of the most literate people in that time. Their lives depended on scriptures and they would even write verses and carry them around ties to their hair. Also Matthew was a tax collector. Pretty sure that meant he had to be able to read and write. Luke was a doctor, same there. Paul was a pharisee and leader in the community. He could read and write and he used scribes like Luke and Mark. Mark was a scribe and wrote for Peter who was probably illiterate being a fisherman. Scribes were all over the place. Also as I mentioned as an oral society they were used to memorizing scriptures and events. They could pass down information unchanged for generations. 40 years is nothing.

[tabibito]

If 5% of the population were literate, it would be no stretch to assume that 1% of converts would be literate.
And of course, all of the literate converts would find the religion they converted to so unimportant that nothing of what was being said and taught was worth committing to writing.

[Mountain Man]

This thread seems to have diverged rather wildly from the OP, so I'll make this brief:

The Bible makes it crystal clear that the only path to reconciliation with God is through Jesus:


And for anybody who thinks they're going to skate into heaven by being "51% good", well...

Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.
-James 2:10

Even 99% good is not good enough when the standard is perfection.

[Tassman]

you keep making these unproven claims.

These are the claims of the majority of contemporary biblical scholars and historians employing historical-critical methodology.

I would say that the Jews were probably some of the most literate people in that time. Their lives depended on scriptures and they would even write verses and carry them around ties to their hair. Also Matthew was a tax collector. Pretty sure that meant he had to be able to read and write. Luke was a doctor, same there. Paul was a pharisee and leader in the community. He could read and write and he used scribes like Luke and Mark. Mark was a scribe and wrote for Peter who was probably illiterate being a fisherman. Scribes were all over the place. Also as I mentioned as an oral society they were used to memorizing scriptures and events. They could pass down information unchanged for generations. 40 years is nothing.

Several significant studies of literacy have appeared in recent years showing just how low literacy rates were in antiquity. The most frequently cited study is by Columbia professor William Harris in a book titled Ancient Literacy. By thoroughly examining all the surviving evidence, Harris draws the compelling though surprising conclusion that in the very best of times in the ancient world, only about 10 percent of the population could read at all and possibly copy out writing on a page. Far fewer than this, of course, could compose a sentence, let alone a story, let alone an entire book.

[Doug Shaver]

The Bible makes it crystal clear . . . .

Some of the men who wrote it made their own beliefs crystal clear. Since I have no idea who those men were, I have no reason to just take their word for anything they say.

[37818]

I have never claimed to be convinced that there is no God. I have claimed only that I have no good reason to believe in God, and that absence of sufficient reason to believe is justification enough for not believing.

So is this to be understood that you never believed in any God?

Existence is a presupposition. We are in an existence. Even if one presumes only caused existences there would still have to be an uncaused existence for in which all caused existences to exist.

The universe being defined as all that exists would therefore included uncaused existence.

We acquire knowledge through observation and the proper exercise of reason. Both are necessary and they are jointly sufficient.

How is it, that we believe in reason?

We recognize a new truth by its consistency with all previously discovered truths.

Yes, but that does not identify truth as to what it is. How we know it is truth. Truth is what corresponds to reality. What is truth does not change.

[Sparko]

These are the claims of the majority of contemporary biblical scholars and historians employing historical-critical methodology.

actually no they're not.

Several significant studies of literacy have appeared in recent years showing just how low literacy rates were in antiquity. The most frequently cited study is by Columbia professor William Harris in a book titled Ancient Literacy. By thoroughly examining all the surviving evidence, Harris draws the compelling though surprising conclusion that in the very best of times in the ancient world, only about 10 percent of the population could read at all and possibly copy out writing on a page. Far fewer than this, of course, could compose a sentence, let alone a story, let alone an entire book.

Already explained.

[Mountain Man]

Some of the men who wrote it made their own beliefs crystal clear. Since I have no idea who those men were, I have no reason to just take their word for anything they say.

Irrelevant. The Bible is the standard for Christian theology, and that's what it says.

[Doug Shaver]

Some of the men who wrote it made their own beliefs crystal clear. Since I have no idea who those men were, I have no reason to just take their word for anything they say.

Irrelevant. The Bible is the standard for Christian theology, and that's what it says.

It is irrelevant to those committed to the doctrines of a particular kind of Christianity. To us without any sectarian allegiances, the only thing crystal clear about the Bible is that its authors disagreed about some rather fundamental issues.

[Doug Shaver]

I have never claimed to be convinced that there is no God. I have claimed only that I have no good reason to believe in God, and that absence of sufficient reason to believe is justification enough for not believing.

So is this to be understood that you never believed in any God?

However, you seem to be referring to what many people call the Principle of Sufficient Reason. I do not regard that principle as axiomatic.

Existence is a presupposition. We are in an existence. Even if one presumes only caused existences there would still have to be an uncaused existence for in which all caused existences to exist.

That is wordplay. We cannot infer anything about reality merely by analyzing the language with which we talk about it.

The universe being defined as all that exists would therefore included uncaused existence.

Existence is an abstraction, a mental construct. As such, it is a product of our minds. It need not be any more real than that. An Aristotelian would disagree, but I am not an Aristotelian.

How is it, that we believe in reason?

Our survival depends on it.

We recognize a new truth by its consistency with all previously discovered truths.

Yes, but that does not identify truth as to what it is.

Truth is what corresponds to reality.

OK. Then our discussion can move on to trying to figure out how we should attempt to determine what that reality is.

[37818]

So is it fair to say, your reason to no longer believe in any God is not being able to find a justifiable reason to believe in any God? I would also guess you do not have any idea what that justifiable reason would be.

That is wordplay. We cannot infer anything about reality merely by analyzing the language with which we talk about it.

Space is a type of existence we are part of. Space is invisible. But anything in our physical world as we know it has "space" in some way. God is not space. Now the things which exist in space are not space. Now space exists. It is in existence. In the same way as things in space are not space, things in existence are not existence. I will stop here.

Existence is an abstraction, a mental construct. As such, it is a product of our minds. It need not be any more real than that. An Aristotelian would disagree, but I am not an Aristotelian.

See my above comment.

Our survival depends on it.

Would you be willing to say reason - logic as we use it - is a self evident? It exists, but has no space.

Our belief in truth is at issue. I am of the opinion that over the identiy of truth Christianity can, in theory, be falsified.

John 18:37c,
. . . Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. . . .

I deduce the fundamental reason (John 10:26) people do not believe in God's Christ is their problem with truth. Your explanation, I think, is indicative of this phenomena.

OK. Then our discussion can move on to trying to figure out how we should attempt to determine what that reality is.

I agree. Reality is what actually exists, whether physical or abstract truth. 1 + 1 = 2 is an abstract truth. Once one knows it, how can you not know it? One's self is both physical and abstract.

[Doug Shaver]

Our belief in truth is at issue. I am of the opinion that over the identiy of truth Christianity can, in theory, be falsified.

John 18:37c,
. . . Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. . . .

I deduce the fundamental reason (John 10:26) people do not believe in God's Christ is their problem with truth. Your explanation, I think, is indicative of this phenomena.

OK. You have a book in which you have placed your faith. No matter what I say about how I think, or what I believe or why I believe it, if that book says something different, you will ignore whatever I say and believe the book. If the book says I am lying, you will believe I am lying just because the book says I am lying. In such a circumstance, I don't see much point in continuing this conversation.

[Tassman]

Our belief in truth is at issue. I am of the opinion that over the identiy of truth Christianity can, in theory, be falsified.

John 18:37c,
. . . Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. . . .

I deduce the fundamental reason (John 10:26) people do not believe in God's Christ is their problem with truth. Your explanation, I think, is indicative of this phenomena.

[37818]

Our belief in truth is at issue. I am of the opinion that over the identiy of truth Christianity can, in theory, be falsified.

John 18:37c,
. . . Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. . . .

I deduce the fundamental reason (John 10:26) people do not believe in God's Christ is their problem with truth. Your explanation, I think, is indicative of this phenomena.

Please explain what and why you see is flawed.