Proof there is no God

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Terrapin Station »

evolution wrote: October 26th, 2020, 3:19 pm If you meant 'your' instead of 'you are', here,
It's quite the mystery, isn't it?
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Fanman »

I think that if Jesus was who he claimed to be, then God exists. I understand that there are only witness accounts of what he did, but is there a valid reason to believe that his and other testimonies of his “divinity” were merely lies, other than the unlikeliness of miracles? Is the whole new testament, post his death and ...resurrection... contrived? If that is the case what evidence do we have of that? Either way, for the Christian God at least, I believe that the possibility of his existence hinges upon whether or not Jesus was telling the truth. Which philosophically speaking is a very thin line.

In fact, besides from absurdity and scepticism, how can we substantiate that the contents of the Bible are a lie, confabulation, or myth? They are the primary reasons that I stopped believing, but can it be proven that nothing outside of what we would call "normal parameters" never happened?

I give you the floor. 8)
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Fanman wrote: October 27th, 2020, 1:37 pm I think that if Jesus was who he claimed to be, then God exists. I understand that there are only witness accounts of what he did, but is there a valid reason to believe that his and other testimonies of his “divinity” were merely lies, other than the unlikeliness of miracles? Is the whole new testament, post his death and ...resurrection... contrived? If that is the case what evidence do we have of that? Either way, for the Christian God at least, I believe that the possibility of his existence hinges upon whether or not Jesus was telling the truth. Which philosophically speaking is a very thin line.

In fact, besides from absurdity and scepticism, how can we substantiate that the contents of the Bible are a lie, confabulation, or myth? They are the primary reasons that I stopped believing, but can it be proven that nothing outside of what we would call "normal parameters" never happened?

I give you the floor. 8)

That is getting us away from the subject of this thread, as it is not entirely clear that the god character in the Bible has the characteristics mentioned in the opening post. Here is a list of some of the verses which indicate that god in the Bible is not omniscient, etc.:

https://thechurchoftruth.org/god-is-not ... of-babble/

I am not asking you to trust the text there; look up the verses for yourself in your favorite translation of the Bible.


But setting that aside, the way to judge a text like the Bible as history is the same way one would judge every other ancient text. Are you tempted to believe the Iliad that reports the involvement of various ancient Greek gods in the war between the Greeks and the Trojans? Why or why not?

In practice, of course, people who already believe the Bible do not read it and consider it in the same way as other ancient texts. If they did, they would either be led to believe many other ancient texts that essentially contradict the Bible (and each other), or they would reject the Bible as just another collection of fabulous tales, like so many other ancient writings.


You might find this essay interesting, about other "miracle workers" in the middle east about 2000 years ago:

https://infidels.org/library/modern/ric ... kooks.html


And this article on a slightly different topic:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... t-hold-up/


Basically, what we are dealing with is a set of texts, written in a primitive and barbarous time, that make ridiculous claims, that, if made today, no one would believe. Allow me to illustrate.

Suppose I told you that my wife was pregnant when we got married, but she was a virgin, and I know she was a virgin because I had a dream in which an angel told me she was a virgin. Now, would you be even slightly tempted to believe this? That my fiancée was pregnant and a virgin? If not, then why would you believe the same story told in an ancient text, where you don't even know if any of the characters in the text ever really existed?

The fact of the matter is, most of the people who believe the ancient miracles would not apply the same standards to reports made today; they are smart enough to reject such a story now as ridiculous, but they are not smart enough to apply those same standards to an old book. In other words, they are being inconsistent.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Fanman wrote: October 27th, 2020, 1:37 pm... can it be proven that nothing outside of what we would call "normal parameters" never happened?
...

For that, you might want to read "Of Miracles" by David Hume. It is Section X of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and you can find it here:

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#lf0222_label_047

To get you started, the "real presence" referred to in the first sentence is about the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, in which it is claimed that there is the "real presence" of Jesus in the wine and bread of the Eucharist ceremony, so that the substance of the wine and bread literally changes into the blood and body of Jesus, but that it still looks like wine and bread. This is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church to this day.

Now, if you want to discuss this as a topic, it would be best to start a new thread on it.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Jack D Ripper »

If you want to read a summary of the essay "Of Miracles" (the summary is in 2 parts, with the first link to Part 1, and the second link to Part 2):

https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blog ... t-one.html

https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blog ... t-two.html

However, I do recommend that you if are interested in what Hume said, that you carefully read the original text.

The above is a better summary than most of what you will find if you search online.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Fanman »

Jack D Ripper,

Thank you for the links you posted. I don't think that I'm going to read them, but the sentiment and thoroughness are appreciated.
But setting that aside, the way to judge a text like the Bible as history is the same way one would judge every other ancient text. Are you tempted to believe the Iliad that reports the involvement of various ancient Greek gods in the war between the Greeks and the Trojans? Why or why not?
No, because I don't believe in anthropomorphized deities. I don’t think the Bible is written in the same context as the Iliad. It is difficult to compare the two texts in the same vein.
Basically, what we are dealing with is a set of texts, written in a primitive and barbarous time, that make ridiculous claims, that, if made today, no one would believe. Allow me to illustrate.
How do you know that people, I assume you mean anyone, would not believe it if events similar to what is described in the Bible happened in this day and age?
Suppose I told you that my wife was pregnant when we got married, but she was a virgin, and I know she was a virgin because I had a dream in which an angel told me she was a virgin. Now, would you be even slightly tempted to believe this? That my fiancée was pregnant and a virgin? If not, then why would you believe the same story told in an ancient text, where you don't even know if any of the characters in the text ever really existed?
There is a lot of context relating to the birth of Jesus. Your analogy is without context.
The fact of the matter is, most of the people who believe the ancient miracles would not apply the same standards to reports made today; they are smart enough to reject such a story now as ridiculous, but they are not smart enough to apply those same standards to an old book. In other words, they are being inconsistent.
It depends on what you define as a 'miracle', and what you define as “smart”. Things which happen to people that are against the odds are defined by some as miracles, hence the term can be used in a colloquial sense. Some people believe they've had religious experiences. I do not assent to their claims, but I don't dismiss them based on what is absolutely possible or impossible, it is just that I don't believe, because they seem absurd. I don’t believe that things can occur that are outside of the remits of nature's order, but who can define what all of nature consists of? Do nature's boundaries exist only on the earth, or when we speak of nature are we speaking of all existence. I don't believe that human beings are well placed enough to claim that they know what is and what is not ultimately possible. We have accurate, empirical methods of investigating nature, but they are not absolute. When investigating religions for veracity, we cannot apply those tools that give us the same level of accuracy. We have to depend on the people's judgements and ability to accurately articulate their experiences. What I'm saying, is that we cannot measure what we can verify empirically with the same tools used to verify a religious claim. If we do that, there will not be a single religious claim that we believe can have veridical status. Any religious person we ask to verify their claims is therefore wasting their time because the deck is already stacked against them.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Fanman wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:15 am Jack D Ripper,

Thank you for the links you posted. I don't think that I'm going to read them, but the sentiment and thoroughness are appreciated.
But setting that aside, the way to judge a text like the Bible as history is the same way one would judge every other ancient text. Are you tempted to believe the Iliad that reports the involvement of various ancient Greek gods in the war between the Greeks and the Trojans? Why or why not?
No, because I don't believe in anthropomorphized deities.

You seem to be saying that you have a prejudice against anthropomorphized deities but not against deities that are not anthropomorphized. I think you should not have any such prejudice, and should simply judge all of the texts as you would any other testimony that you encounter.

Also, the god of the BIble:

Genesis 1:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...


That certainly seems to be saying that god in the Bible is like people are, as otherwise, what would be the meaning of that?


Genesis 2:

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

How is needing to rest not anthropomorphic?


Genesis 3:

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?


So, god takes a stroll in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and Eve hide from god, who goes looking for them, apparently not knowing where they are hidden. Again, this is an anthropomorphic god.

There are many, many more such things in the Bible. How can you possibly claim that the god of the Bible is not anthropomorphic?

Fanman wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:15 am I don’t think the Bible is written in the same context as the Iliad. It is difficult to compare the two texts in the same vein.

In all cases, the proper method is the same. One thinks about what is claimed, about what evidence one has regarding it. One thinks about who said it and why they might say it (e.g., think about a used car salesman telling you that the car he is trying to sell you is in good condition, etc.). One then comes to a conclusion about it, or judges that one lacks sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion.

Fanman wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:15 am
Basically, what we are dealing with is a set of texts, written in a primitive and barbarous time, that make ridiculous claims, that, if made today, no one would believe. Allow me to illustrate.
How do you know that people, I assume you mean anyone, would not believe it if events similar to what is described in the Bible happened in this day and age?

I do not mean everyone. I mean that most people seem to view the miracle stories of the Bible differently than how they view stories today. Like the virgin birth story; I have not found any Christians who would accept such a story if told today, but believe it in the Bible.

Fanman wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:15 am
Suppose I told you that my wife was pregnant when we got married, but she was a virgin, and I know she was a virgin because I had a dream in which an angel told me she was a virgin. Now, would you be even slightly tempted to believe this? That my fiancée was pregnant and a virgin? If not, then why would you believe the same story told in an ancient text, where you don't even know if any of the characters in the text ever really existed?
There is a lot of context relating to the birth of Jesus. Your analogy is without context.

The context, though, rather contradicts the other stories. For example, Luke 2:

41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
45 And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.


Now, the only way that could be true is if they were unaware of the virgin birth, which means that this story is telling you that that nonsense about the virgin birth and the angel telling Joseph about it is pure BS, is a total lie, it did not happen. A virgin birth is not something that is going to slip your mind, so there is no way they would not know what Jesus was talking about if the virgin story were true.

So, rather than helping support the story, the context proves that the story is false.


Someone else reading this might want to look at this:

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/124572693

Fanman wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:15 am
The fact of the matter is, most of the people who believe the ancient miracles would not apply the same standards to reports made today; they are smart enough to reject such a story now as ridiculous, but they are not smart enough to apply those same standards to an old book. In other words, they are being inconsistent.
It depends on what you define as a 'miracle', and what you define as “smart”. Things which happen to people that are against the odds are defined by some as miracles, hence the term can be used in a colloquial sense.

That is just a red herring. Something that really isn't a miracle being called a miracle does not make actual miracles more likely.

Fanman wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:15 am
Some people believe they've had religious experiences.

Yes, some of which are associated with mental illness (do a search for yourself if you doubt this). There are also ways to induce hallucinations, many of which fit with how one is instructed to pray in the Bible (e.g., fasting, sensory deprivation).

Also, even if we took them to be real evidence of the truth of some religion, you have Muslims having religious experiences that they say shows that Islam is true, Hindus having religious experiences that they say shows Hinduism is true, etc. Since the religions all contradict each other, at most, one could be true. So religious experience proves absolutely nothing, since contradictory religions have such experiences supporting them.

Fanman wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:15 am I do not assent to their claims, but I don't dismiss them based on what is absolutely possible or impossible, it is just that I don't believe, because they seem absurd. I don’t believe that things can occur that are outside of the remits of nature's order, but who can define what all of nature consists of? Do nature's boundaries exist only on the earth, or when we speak of nature are we speaking of all existence. I don't believe that human beings are well placed enough to claim that they know what is and what is not ultimately possible. We have accurate, empirical methods of investigating nature, but they are not absolute. When investigating religions for veracity, we cannot apply those tools that give us the same level of accuracy. We have to depend on the people's judgements and ability to accurately articulate their experiences. What I'm saying, is that we cannot measure what we can verify empirically with the same tools used to verify a religious claim. If we do that, there will not be a single religious claim that we believe can have veridical status.

If you are right about that, then maybe that is a good reason to not believe it, to suppose it is all BS nonsense.

Fanman wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:15 am
Any religious person we ask to verify their claims is therefore wasting their time because the deck is already stacked against them.

It is stacked against one when one makes ridiculous claims. Also, in the case of religion, fraud is common. Really, for what you are saying, you should read "Of Miracles" and the summary to which I posted a link, and if you have questions or comments, it should be in a different thread than this one.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Fanman »

Jack D Ripper,
There are many, many more such things in the Bible. How can you possibly claim that the god of the Bible is not anthropomorphic?
You raise some very interesting points that I would like to discuss. But before we continue, please show me where I claimed as above?
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Fanman wrote: October 29th, 2020, 4:55 am Jack D Ripper,
There are many, many more such things in the Bible. How can you possibly claim that the god of the Bible is not anthropomorphic?
You raise some very interesting points that I would like to discuss. But before we continue, please show me where I claimed as above?

You wrote:
Fanman wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:15 am...

No, because I don't believe in anthropomorphized deities. I don’t think the Bible is written in the same context as the Iliad. It is difficult to compare the two texts in the same vein.
...

If you did not mean to suggest that the god of the Bible was different from the gods of the Iliad in the sense of whether it is anthropomorphized or not, why did you write those sentences together, as if they were related to each other? What difference in "context" is there with the Bible god versus the gods of the Iliad? The only suggestion you give in that paragraph is the idea of anthropomorphization.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Fanman »

Jack D Ripper,
If you did not mean to suggest that the god of the Bible was different from the gods of the Iliad in the sense of whether it is anthropomorphized or not, why did you write those sentences together, as if they were related to each other? What difference in "context" is there with the Bible god versus the gods of the Iliad? The only suggestion you give in that paragraph is the idea of anthropomorphization.
I was making a general point. That I don’t believe in anthropomorphized deities. I was not claiming that there is a difference between God and the Greek pantheon. In terms of context, the Bible is purported as the actual words of God, it is effectively his identity, and instructions given to mankind. I do not believe that the Iliad is written in that context.

Do you believe that the Bible and the Iliad are effectively the same, if so why?
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Fanman wrote: October 29th, 2020, 2:21 pm Jack D Ripper,
If you did not mean to suggest that the god of the Bible was different from the gods of the Iliad in the sense of whether it is anthropomorphized or not, why did you write those sentences together, as if they were related to each other? What difference in "context" is there with the Bible god versus the gods of the Iliad? The only suggestion you give in that paragraph is the idea of anthropomorphization.
I was making a general point. That I don’t believe in anthropomorphized deities. I was not claiming that there is a difference between God and the Greek pantheon. In terms of context, the Bible is purported as the actual words of God, it is effectively his identity, and instructions given to mankind.

People make that claim about the Bible, but not all of the individual books of the Bible have such a claim in them. So I don't think that claim that is made externally makes any difference. Someone could say the same about the Iliad. If I made that claim, would you then view the books in a similar way?

Also, even in a book that claims to have been directly inspired by a god, that is a claim that any writer could make who wishes to do so. So it does not give a book any special status; it is just another claim to be evaluated, just like all of the other claims that are made in the book.

Fanman wrote: October 29th, 2020, 2:21 pm
I do not believe that the Iliad is written in that context.

Do you believe that the Bible and the Iliad are effectively the same, if so why?

I think they should be evaluated in exactly the same way.

There are differences, as the Iliad may have been written by one person (though possibly is a compilation of various stories told orally by different people in what was the past when the Iliad was written down), but that is not possible with the Bible, which is a collection of books written many years apart, in different languages, etc. So one might want to separate out the different books of the Bible and evaluate them individually, or one could instead try to view it as a whole, in which case discussions of the people who put it all together into one book come into play, where one considers why they chose the books they chose, and why they excluded the books they excluded.

It is also worth mentioning in connection with this that the Bibles of Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and mainstream protestants differ in what books are included, as well as different versions of some of the books. One can discuss the political and theological motivations for those decisions; it is not the case that God handed the Bible down to us as-is.

So, when someone claims that the Bible is divinely inspired, that really seems to be just propaganda rather than anything pertaining to the truth of how the book came to be. And, of course, calling it "the" Bible is problematic for the reason mentioned in the previous paragraph; it should really be "a" Bible that we are discussing, or several Bibles, as they are not the same between different types of Christians.

If you want more on that, you can do a search for "biblical canon" (without the quotation marks), though you will want to be careful to note that many things that pop up will be of specific denominations and will therefore be a promotion of one version rather than an analysis of the different canons of different churches. Or you could start by looking at the links below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/en ... ical_canon
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Fanman »

Jack D Ripper,
People make that claim about the Bible, but not all of the individual books of the Bible have such a claim in them. So I don't think that claim that is made externally makes any difference. Someone could say the same about the Iliad. If I made that claim, would you then view the books in a similar way?
I haven’t read the Iliad. I know it from my days of listening to my Aristotle audiobook, Poetics, Rhetoric and Logic. From my perspective, they are not similar. Even though they are both mythical.
Also, even in a book that claims to have been directly inspired by a god, that is a claim that any writer could make who wishes to do so. So it does not give a book any special status; it is just another claim to be evaluated, just like all of the other claims that are made in the book.
I don’t know if it was divinely inspired or if people were just lying, but what I do know, is that it contains some huge, very absurd and problematic to believe claims.
I think they should be evaluated in exactly the same way.
That’s right, so do I. But in doing so, their contexts and circumstances have to be taken into account. As you expound so well on below.
There are differences, as the Iliad may have been written by one person (though possibly is a compilation of various stories told orally by different people in what was the past when the Iliad was written down), but that is not possible with the Bible, which is a collection of books written many years apart, in different languages, etc. So one might want to separate out the different books of the Bible and evaluate them individually, or one could instead try to view it as a whole, in which case discussions of the people who put it all together into one book come into play, where one considers why they chose the books they chose, and why they excluded the books they excluded.
Excellent.
It is also worth mentioning in connection with this that the Bibles of Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and mainstream protestants differ in what books are included, as well as different versions of some of the books. One can discuss the political and theological motivations for those decisions; it is not the case that God handed the Bible down to us as-is.
Correct.
So, when someone claims that the Bible is divinely inspired, that really seems to be just propaganda rather than anything pertaining to the truth of how the book came to be. And, of course, calling it "the" Bible is problematic for the reason mentioned in the previous paragraph; it should really be "a" Bible that we are discussing, or several Bibles, as they are not the same between different types of Christians.
That’s right. The possibility that the Bible is something that was created for political gain, is more likely than it being inspired divinely. I mean, if we look at history and how the Bible was used by people or organisations that were in power, it is a literal horror story. Whereas, what can we say of any “divine fruits” that were yielded from the Bible? There is nothing empirical, no miracles to speak of, just people’s personal religious claims, which are not taken seriously.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Jack D Ripper »

I think that the reason why the different Christians do not tend to go out of their way to advertise the fact that they have different versions of the Bible, containing different books and different versions of some of the books, is because doing so highlights the fact that they are dealing with a collection of books, that people have put together, rather than a single unified whole that they typically pretend that it is. If they were to draw attention to the fact that there are different collections of books that are called "the Bible", this would throw suspicion on the claim that it was divinely inspired, because if the divinely inspired nature of it all was so very clear, why would there be disagreement about what should be included in the collection?

After all, even other Christians don't believe their claim that their set of books is the right set that is divinely inspired. So an outsider looking at that is going to tend to be more skeptical of this claim of divine inspiration, which does not serve the interests of any of the groups. So they all call their different collections "the" Bible and do not concern themselves too much about the fact that the definite article "the" is basically a lie.

Another aspect of this is that many individual Christians are completely unaware of the fact that there are different Bibles with different books and different versions of some of the books. Their leaders don't tend to tell them about this because, again, this tends to throw doubt on the claim that the particular collection that they use is divinely inspired. Usually, if this comes up at all, they are dismissive of what some other version of Christianity is doing, as, after all, they are among the ones who are "wrong" about religion or they would be members of the same church.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Fanman »

Jack D Ripper,

All valid points. I think that even though "the" Bible is effectively a collection of different books. For something of that nature, it is pretty consistent in terms of the "character" of God. It must have been difficult to maintain that kind of continuity across its many different authors and a large number of passing years (were there not conflicts of author's opinions?). As an agnostic, my flag is not nailed to any mast, and I try to keep an open mind about these things. But when subjected to critical thinking, the Bible's cogency dissipates and the reader (if they're a believer) must rely on faith alone. In this day and age (as you mentioned), faith doesn't seem a wise choice, when the empirical sciences are doing an excellent job. Unless those who have faith have experienced its benefits and can give convincing testimonies, it is unlikely that many people will turn to God.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Proof there is no God

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Fanman wrote: October 30th, 2020, 10:36 am Jack D Ripper,

All valid points. I think that even though "the" Bible is effectively a collection of different books. For something of that nature, it is pretty consistent in terms of the "character" of God. It must have been difficult to maintain that kind of continuity across its many different authors and a large number of passing years (were there not conflicts of author's opinions?). As an agnostic, my flag is not nailed to any mast, and I try to keep an open mind about these things. But when subjected to critical thinking, the Bible's cogency dissipates and the reader (if they're a believer) must rely on faith alone. In this day and age (as you mentioned), faith doesn't seem a wise choice, when the empirical sciences are doing an excellent job. Unless those who have faith have experienced its benefits and can give convincing testimonies, it is unlikely that many people will turn to God.
I would say that it is worse for the believer than just having blind faith, which is bad enough. I would say it is more "mad-dog" faith, belief against the evidence. Really, the only reasonable way to deal with the miracle stories in the Bible is to not believe them. Even believers commonly have some inkling of this fact when they think about miracle stories that supposedly prove that other religions are true, or when one brings one of the miracle stories into the modern era, like claiming some woman today is a virgin and pregnant and one knows she is a virgin because of a dream in which an angel tells one that she is a virgin.


As for god in the Bible, I think some of the claims that suggest that god is omniscient very much contradict some of the stories where god seems to not know things (like where Adam and Eve are hiding). There are other such kinds of things, so I don't think god is consistent among the various books.


Also, since most Christians seem to regard Jesus as god, you might find a link I gave earlier interesting:
Professor BART EHRMAN (Religious Studies, University of North Carolina; Author, "Jesus, Interrupted"): I think it's important to know that each of these authors of the New Testament had a different message. What people tend to do is - allied the various teachings of, say, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John so that if Matthew portrays Jesus in one way and Mark portrays him in a different way, what people do is they conflate the two accounts so that Jesus says and does everything that he says in Matthew and in Mark. But when you do that, you, in fact, rob each of these authors of their own integrity as an author.

When Matthew was writing, he didn't intend for somebody to read some other Gospel and interpret his Gospel in light of what some other author said. He had his own message. And so recognizing that there are these discrepancies is a -kind of a key to the interpretation of these books because it shows that they each have a different message, and that you can't smash the four Gospels into one big Gospel and think that you get the true understanding.

GROSS: Let's look at one of the most significant moments in the story of Jesus, and that is Jesus's death on the cross. In Mark, Jesus dies in agony, unsure of the reason he must die, and he asks God: Why have you forsaken me? Whereas in Luke, he prays: Father, forgive them for they don't know what they're doing. Can you talk about those two different points of view of what happens to Jesus as he's dying on the cross?

Prof. EHRMAN: Right. People don't realize that these are very different portrayals. But when you read Mark's account very carefully, Jesus seems to be in shock. He doesn't say anything the entire time. He's mocked by everybody - by the Roman soldiers, by people passing by.

In Mark's Gospel, he's mocked by both robbers who are being crucified with him. And at the end, his only words are his cry of dereliction, as it's called: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And then he cries out and dies, and that's it.

And so it's a story that's filled with pathos and emotion, and Jesus is clearly in great agony going to his death, whereas in Luke, you have a very different portrayal. Jesus isn't silent in Luke while being crucified. When they nail him to the cross, he prays for those who are doing this: Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing.

While he's hanging on the cross, he actually has an intelligent conversation with one of the other people being crucified. One of the others mocks Jesus, and the second person tells the first to be quiet because Jesus hasn't done anything to deserve this. And he turns his head to Jesus and he says Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And Jesus replies: Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.

And so Jesus knows fully well what's happening to him and why it's happening to him. And he knows what's going to happen to him after it happens. He's going to wake up in paradise, and this guy's going to be next to him. And the most telling thing of all is that in Luke, instead of crying out, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me - instead of that, Jesus says, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.

And so what happens is, people take this account of Luke, where Jesus seems to be calm and in control and knows perfectly well what's happening, and combines it with Mark, where Jesus is in doubt and despair. And they put the two accounts into one big account. So Jesus says all the things that he says in Mark and in Luke and thereby, robbing each account of what it's trying to say about Jesus in the face of death.

GROSS: And those two stories are so contradictory, it kind of makes no sense to combine the two?

Prof. EHRMAN: I think it makes no sense, because Mark is trying to say something quite specific about what it was like for Jesus to go to his death. And if you bring into Mark the details from Luke, then Mark's message is lost. Jesus is no longer the way Mark wanted to portray him.

And then, of course, what people do is, they also bring in what Matthew has to say, and then they bring in what John has to say. And you end up with this massive account in which Jesus says and does all of these things, which is unlike any of the Gospels.

So in effect, what people do is - by combining these Gospels in their head into one Gospel they, in effect, have written their own Gospel, which is completely unlike any of the Gospels of the New Testament.

GROSS: What's typically brought into the story of Jesus's final moments on Earth from Matthew and John?

Prof. EHRMAN: Well, an example from John is that Jesus is hanging on the cross, and he cries out: I'm thirsty. And the author tells us that the reason Jesus said he was thirsty wasn't so much because he was thirsty, but because he wanted to fulfill the Scripture. Because there's a Scripture, a Hebrew Bible passage, an Old Testament passage, where it talks about being thirsty.

And so in John's Gospel in particular, Jesus's death isn't an agonizing moment for Jesus. It's an opportunity for Jesus to fulfill Scripture. And so you combine that with what's going on with Mark and Luke, and then you throw in the material from Matthew, and what you end up with is this famous idea that Jesus had seven last dying words, the seven last words of the dying Jesus, which becomes important in churches today that celebrate these seven last words. But in fact, they're not found in any Gospel. They represent conflations of the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/124572693

There is a lot more in the interview, and, I would imagine, much more in the book Professor Ehrman wrote.

Really, people imagine that the books agree, because they read them together as if they were one book and try very hard to reconcile the different and contradictory stories.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021