How much do we know?

TagliatelliMonster · Jul 2, 2019

David T said:
Like i said read muir. Not that hard. Actually.

Why don't you summarise the relevant points for me, instead of asking me to go pick up random books from some author, hoping to find the specific point you are referring to?

Fantasy is a funny thing. Muir doesnt speak in fantasy terms. He speaks very clearly and directly. Now if someone insists their fantasy, or in this case ( belief, non belief agnosticism), singular is fact, well thats the seed of the vast majority of mental disorders. It really does not matter. Factually ...

All I did was share my observation that when I hear theists talk about their god(s), they are clearly talking about something else then just mere nature.

The majority of theists even will say that their god created nature. I'll go ahead and assume that they wouldn't agree with the idea that god created himself.

Gods and nature simply aren't the same thing. They aren't synonyms.
You seem to be claiming they are. That seems quite an indefensible stance to take.

And you don't seem prepared to defend it either, since you keep trying to "send me away" by telling me to go read whatever from some author. Like who cares.... if you can't properly summarize the points that would properly address the point I made, I have no reason to assume that wasting my time on those books would amount to anything at all of value.

Whats your belief about gravity ? It does not matter.

More importantly, it's irrelevant to the point at hand.

Since it does not matter in terms of gravity it most certainly does not matter in context to the topic god and nature both. Irrelevant who cares?

Did you even comprehend the point I was making?

David T · Jul 2, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
Why don't you summarise the relevant points for me, instead of asking me to go pick up random books from some author, hoping to find the specific point you are referring to?

All I did was share my observation that when I hear theists talk about their god(s), they are clearly talking about something else then just mere nature.

The majority of theists even will say that their god created nature. I'll go ahead and assume that they wouldn't agree with the idea that god created himself.

Gods and nature simply aren't the same thing. They aren't synonyms.
You seem to be claiming they are. That seems quite an indefensible stance to take.

And you don't seem prepared to defend it either, since you keep trying to "send me away" by telling me to go read whatever from some author. Like who cares.... if you can't properly summarize the points that would properly address the point I made, I have no reason to assume that wasting my time on those books would amount to anything at all of value.

More importantly, it's irrelevant to the point at hand.

Did you even comprehend the point I was making?

I just aint into fantasy. Sorry.

TagliatelliMonster · Jul 2, 2019

David T said:
I just aint into fantasy. Sorry.

???

What is "fantasy" about pointing out that when theists talk about god, they mean something different then just mere nature????

David T · Jul 2, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
???

What is "fantasy" about pointing out that when theists talk about god, they mean something different then just mere nature????

I said i dont deal in fantasy you bring it up To them. Thesists didnt write the vast majority of the bible especially the new testament. Mystics did. I treate theism as fans 100 generations deep of esoteric ancient writings written by mystics. Who cares about fans!!!! Like asking a dlyan fan what he means by such and such a line. 20 answers. Tell dylan what the answers are and he laughs. How hard is this really? Imagine 100 generations.thats theism.

NOW YOU KNOW. why dylan ran out church with his hair on fire. He isnt a fan. He is a something else.

BilliardsBall · Jul 3, 2019

blü 2 said:
As I said before, maths and logic exist as systems of concepts, and concepts only exist in brains. If there were no brains around capable of holding concepts, there'd be no maths or logic.

But in fact there are brains around, hence concepts, hence systems of concepts, hence maths and logic.

Brains are material, by the way.

If you have never seen your own brain, how do you know it exists? (Because you've seen other brains or brain scans and a priori assume function follows form, yet I'm disallowed from saying I see God causing effects at multiple macro and micro levels.) Double standard.

blü 2 · Jul 3, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
If you have never seen your own brain, how do you know it exists? (Because you've seen other brains or brain scans and a priori assume function follows form, yet I'm disallowed from saying I see God causing effects at multiple macro and micro levels.) Double standard.

You say that you've seen God causing effects in reality, correct? Yet you have no meaningful definition of a real god. So the only God you can be talking about is an imaginary one, no? When it comes to real gods, you have no more idea what that could mean than I do ─ a fact we've now established.

Whereas, because brains are real, I can not only define 'brain' to you, but refer you to the science regarding their evolution, structure, functions, and so on.

Just as you could do for me if God was real.

No double standard at all.

paarsurrey · Jul 3, 2019

Milton Platt said:
My source for what???

Whatever one said

Regards

Milton Platt · Jul 3, 2019

paarsurrey said:
Whatever one said

Regards

Here is my original post. Point out what you need a source for.

“How do you know that what we don't know has increased. Is there a finite amount of knowledge to be learned and we are learning an increasing amount of this finite amount of knowledge, or is the unknown portion increasing? Why is it increasing, as you assert? How do you know this?
True, we may have more questions, but that may be because we have not thought to ask them before.”

syo · Jul 5, 2019

Thief said:
but I am certain....
there is a God

+1111111111111111111

BilliardsBall · Jul 5, 2019

blü 2 said:
You say that you've seen God causing effects in reality, correct? Yet you have no meaningful definition of a real god. So the only God you can be talking about is an imaginary one, no? When it comes to real gods, you have no more idea what that could mean than I do ─ a fact we've now established.

Whereas, because brains are real, I can not only define 'brain' to you, but refer you to the science regarding their evolution, structure, functions, and so on.

Just as you could do for me if God was real.

No double standard at all.

Huh? Jesus is a great working definition of God, what with His resurrection from the dead and all. And the Bible is extraordinarily prescient, even when it comes to modern Israel, millennia after the original prophecies.

Valjean · Jul 5, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Huh? Jesus is a great working definition of God, what with His resurrection from the dead and all. And the Bible is extraordinarily prescient, even when it comes to modern Israel, millennia after the original prophecies.

God is Jesus? He didn't exist before Jesus? God in all other religions is imaginary?

People are apophenic. They see patterns where there are none. They craft a world to fit their expectations and beliefs.

blü 2 · Jul 5, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Huh? Jesus is a great working definition of God, what with His resurrection from the dead and all. And the Bible is extraordinarily prescient, even when it comes to modern Israel, millennia after the original prophecies.

No, Jesus, given that he's an historical character at all, is (as John Dominic Crossan put it) a 1st century Mediterranean peasant; also a circumcised Jew, and if the gospels are to be believed, which for many reasons I very much doubt, unambiguous in repeatedly assuring people that he wasn't God, merely God's agent. It's fair to say that both Paul and the author of John (but not the authors of Mark, Matthew or Luke) identify him with gnosticism's demiurge and accordingly attribute to him the creation of the material world ─ there's no concept of 'universe' or even 'solar system' back then ─ and place him in heaven before his earthly adventures; but neither pretends he's God, merely God's agent. Jesus doesn't get promoted to God until the invention of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th cent CE ─ and even the churches admit that the Trinity doctrine is incoherent.

But let's assume, simply for illustrative purposes, that Jesus was God. How could we tell? When we take him to the research center for his physical, and his psych profile, what real qualities will we find that are unique to beings who are God? What is real godness? I want to be able to test for those qualities in any real thing, I want to know for sure whether my keyboard, Cori Gauff, the grass or the ants or crickets in it, the EM frequencies coming through my window, my neighbor's dog, is God or not.

cladking · Jul 6, 2019

Valjean said:
People are apophenic. They see patterns where there are none. They craft a world to fit their expectations and beliefs.

The amazing thing is that almost no one realizes this!!! The few of us who do tend to believe it doesn't apply to ourselves because we're aware of it.

There are patterns everywhere but not of the type we can see at a glance. The patterns exist within nature and can only be glimpsed through Knowledge, Creation, and Understanding; the original Holy Trinity.

Religion and science are essentially identical inasmuch as they are a means for confused language speakers to deal with reality in "productive" ways.

BilliardsBall · Jul 8, 2019

Valjean said:
God is Jesus? He didn't exist before Jesus? God in all other religions is imaginary?

People are apophenic. They see patterns where there are none. They craft a world to fit their expectations and beliefs.

Jesus is God, correct.

Jesus is co-eternal with the Father and Spirit, this is evidenced in the Bible, correct.

God is real, therefore, most people with few exceptions, grope for God. God in other religions may be closer to or further from Jesus and the Father, but not wholly imaginary. Remember that most people have a tendency toward idolatry and that there are spiritual adversaries wanting to destroy people with false religion and atheism.

Yes, people ten toward apophenia. However, there are genuine, extraordinary patterns in scripture that help confirm its veracity. People should consider trusting Jesus for salvation by first examining the evidence for Jesus Christ, IMHO.

BilliardsBall · Jul 8, 2019

blü 2 said:
No, Jesus, given that he's an historical character at all, is (as John Dominic Crossan put it) a 1st century Mediterranean peasant; also a circumcised Jew, and if the gospels are to be believed, which for many reasons I very much doubt, unambiguous in repeatedly assuring people that he wasn't God, merely God's agent. It's fair to say that both Paul and the author of John (but not the authors of Mark, Matthew or Luke) identify him with gnosticism's demiurge and accordingly attribute to him the creation of the material world ─ there's no concept of 'universe' or even 'solar system' back then ─ and place him in heaven before his earthly adventures; but neither pretends he's God, merely God's agent. Jesus doesn't get promoted to God until the invention of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th cent CE ─ and even the churches admit that the Trinity doctrine is incoherent.

But let's assume, simply for illustrative purposes, that Jesus was God. How could we tell? When we take him to the research center for his physical, and his psych profile, what real qualities will we find that are unique to beings who are God? What is real godness? I want to be able to test for those qualities in any real thing, I want to know for sure whether my keyboard, Cori Gauff, the grass or the ants or crickets in it, the EM frequencies coming through my window, my neighbor's dog, is God or not.

1) The historicity of Jesus is confirmed by nearly 100% of religion and history scholars.

2) The Bible I read is unambiguous that Jesus is God, not God's mere representative. For a chief example, Jesus was executed for blasphemy (equating Himself with God) in His trials before the Pharisees.

3) How could we tell that Jesus is God? We can examine the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and draw the logical conclusions.

blü 2 · Jul 8, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
1) The historicity of Jesus is confirmed by nearly 100% of religion and history scholars.]

It's possible but it's not necessary in order to explain the NT. Nothing in history offers a clincher either way.

BilliardsBall said:
2) The Bible I read is unambiguous that Jesus is God, not God's mere representative. For a chief example, Jesus was executed for blasphemy (equating Himself with God) in His trials before the Pharisees.

You're free to believe what you like. But when you say the bible says Jesus is God, that's a complete misstatement of what the NT actually says ─ none of Paul or the four gospel writers thinks Jesus is God, and Jesus never once claims to be God ─ though Paul claims that Jesus was in heaven with God from the start, a notion with which John's Jesus agrees, notwithstanding the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke give no support to that. Here are three illustrative denials by Jesus:

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

On top of that, the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist until the 4th century CE, as any history of the early church will tell you; and the churches admit that the Trinity doctrine is complete nonsense, or as they put it, 'a mystery in the strict sense' which they add means it 'cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.' I emphasize that those are their words, not mine, though I acknowledge that they're correct.

For instance, if the Trinity doctrine is correct, then Matthew's Jesus is actually saying, 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me? And since Mathew's and Luke's Jesuses are biological sons of God, and under the Trinity doctrine each of Father, Jesus and Ghost is 100% of God, the Father has no better claim to the title Father than Jesus and the Ghost each have.

And so on.

BilliardsBall said:
3) How could we tell that Jesus is God? We can examine the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and draw the logical conclusions.

Ahm, unfortunately for that line of argument the evidence for the resurrection is a forensic disaster. There is no eyewitness account, no contemporary account, and no independent account. There are six versions of it, starting with Paul and ending with Acts 1, and each of the six contradicts the other five in major ways. If you tried to renew your dog license with evidence of that quality, you'd fail.

And even if it happened, you could argue that it showed God's favor to the dead Jesus, but you couldn't argue that it showed Jesus was God ─ and that's apart from the clarity, frequency and consistency of Jesus' denials that he's God.

If you wish, we can can go into the question in detail.

BilliardsBall · Jul 9, 2019

blü 2 said:
It's possible but it's not necessary in order to explain the NT. Nothing in history offers a clincher either way.
You're free to believe what you like. But when you say the bible says Jesus is God, that's a complete misstatement of what the NT actually says ─ none of Paul or the four gospel writers thinks Jesus is God, and Jesus never once claims to be God ─ though Paul claims that Jesus was in heaven with God from the start, a notion with which John's Jesus agrees, notwithstanding the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke give no support to that. Here are three illustrative denials by Jesus:

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

On top of that, the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist until the 4th century CE, as any history of the early church will tell you; and the churches admit that the Trinity doctrine is complete nonsense, or as they put it, 'a mystery in the strict sense' which they add means it 'cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.' I emphasize that those are their words, not mine, though I acknowledge that they're correct.

For instance, if the Trinity doctrine is correct, then Matthew's Jesus is actually saying, 'Me, me, why have I forsaken me? And since Mathew's and Luke's Jesuses are biological sons of God, and under the Trinity doctrine each of Father, Jesus and Ghost is 100% of God, the Father has no better claim to the title Father than Jesus and the Ghost each have.

And so on.
Ahm, unfortunately for that line of argument the evidence for the resurrection is a forensic disaster. There is no eyewitness account, no contemporary account, and no independent account. There are six versions of it, starting with Paul and ending with Acts 1, and each of the six contradicts the other five in major ways. If you tried to renew your dog license with evidence of that quality, you'd fail.

And even if it happened, you could argue that it showed God's favor to the dead Jesus, but you couldn't argue that it showed Jesus was God ─ and that's apart from the clarity, frequency and consistency of Jesus' denials that he's God.

If you wish, we can can go into the question in detail.

I'm aware of the verses used out of context to deny the doctrine of Jesus as God--I'm also aware that those who love Jesus, even Jews like me raised against a Trinitarian belief, come to understand over time, and that skeptics are VERY uncomfortable with this doctrine, or as Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I AM He, you will perish in your sins."

As for the resurrection, I don't expect you to score high marks, since you claim "There is no eyewitness account, no contemporary account, and no independent account."

Eyewitness account: check!

Contemporary account: See "84 historical accuracy points in Luke" on a related post today!

Independent account: So, a dozen NT writers PLUS apocryphal writers, who according to you, even differ in the details, are NOT an independent account?!! Nor I suppose are the numerous unsaved early authors who report the Christians believed in a resurrection!

GOD EXISTS. I will prove God exists, independently in a real, objective manner, the second you prove YOU EXIST in the same manner.

YOU HAVE THE EASIER BURDEN, so get going!

blü 2 · Jul 9, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I'm aware of the verses used out of context to deny the doctrine of Jesus as God--I'm also aware that those who love Jesus, even Jews like me raised against a Trinitarian belief, come to understand over time, and that skeptics are VERY uncomfortable with this doctrine, or as Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I AM He, you will perish in your sins."

When people deliberately misread documents, not least ancient documents, to try to make the words fit their preconceptions and prejudices, there's a part of me that's discomforted.

There's nothing 'out of context' with the three quotes I gave you. And I note by your silence that you acknowledge that Jesus never says 'I am God'. So I'm not sure what you're arguing about.

BilliardsBall said:
As for the resurrection, I don't expect you to score high marks, since you claim "There is no eyewitness account, no contemporary account, and no independent account."

Eyewitness account: check!

Nope. Not by Paul, who never met Jesus. Not by the authors of Mark, or Matthew, or Luke, or John, or Acts, who never met Jesus either.

BilliardsBall said:
Contemporary account: See "84 historical accuracy points in Luke" on a related post today!

gLuke was written probably around 85 CE, more than fifty years after the traditional date of the crucifixion. Nothing contemporary about that.

BilliardsBall said:
Independent account: So, a dozen NT writers PLUS apocryphal writers, who according to you, even differ in the details, are NOT an independent account?!!

All six accounts of the resurrection are in the NT. And they're not in the NT because they're impartial skeptical reports of historical events; but because they support the faith.

BilliardsBall said:
Nor I suppose are the numerous unsaved early authors who report the Christians believed in a resurrection!

Do you believe that Athena counseled Achilles and Odysseus at Troy? A great many Greeks did. And they did it because the story was one their culture admired. Have you read those reports? Do you accept them as good evidence that as a matter of historical fact Athena counseled Achilles and Odysseus?

BilliardsBall said:
GOD EXISTS. I will prove God exists, independently in a real, objective manner, the second you prove YOU EXIST in the same manner.

We've already established that you have no useful definition of a real god, a definition by which anyone can tell whether any being, thing or phenomenon is God or not. (Not that I blame you ─ as far as I know, there's no such definition.) So all your statement means is that you have faith that God is real, even though you don't know what a real god is ─ and asserting your faith is something you're completely entitled to do. Still, it might do your cred no harm to say that's what you're doing.

Valjean · Jul 9, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Jesus is God, correct.

Jesus is co-eternal with the Father and Spirit, this is evidenced in the Bible, correct.

Just writing something is not necessarily evidence, particularly when the authors have an agenda.

God is real, therefore, most people with few exceptions, grope for God. God in other religions may be closer to or further from Jesus and the Father, but not wholly imaginary. Remember that most people have a tendency toward idolatry and that there are spiritual adversaries wanting to destroy people with false religion and atheism.

What evidence do you have for this God, and for this particular, Christian take on it?

Yes, people ten toward apophenia. However, there are genuine, extraordinary patterns in scripture that help confirm its veracity. People should consider trusting Jesus for salvation by first examining the evidence for Jesus Christ, IMHO.

What are these patterns? What is this evidence? If it's really there, why isn't it universally accepted?
Are these patterns/evidence missing in the scriptures of other religions?

If the Christian scriptures were really well evidenced, wouldn't you expect general, worldwide accord, as we see with the sciences? It appears people believe whatever they learned in their youth, not what they actually have evidence for. Christians raise Christians; Muslims, Muslims. Both insist their particularly theology is well evidenced.

Valjean · Jul 9, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
1) The historicity of Jesus is confirmed by nearly 100% of religion and history scholars.

Religious scholars I'd expect to have a somewhat biased view, to begin with unevidenced premises and be less than rigorous in their critical analysis.
Most historians aren't biblical analysts. Those that do delve deeply into the subject see the contradictions and lack of evidence.
Even if a Jesus did exist, was He anything like His depiction? Is He just convenient a composite? Over the centuries, a great deal of folkloric 'common knowledge' can accumulate, unquestioned.

3) How could we tell that Jesus is God? We can examine the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and draw the logical conclusions.

But there is no real evidence, just a lot of folklore. There's magical folklore associated with every culture. They all believe it, but there's little, if any, good evidence

How much do we know?

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member