I don't think you're trying to convert me, but I don't get why you think the scale of the claims somehow makes them more plausible? — Pfhorrest

My point is not that the scale of religious claims makes them more credible. It is instead that the scale of your claims makes them less credible.

However, the scale of your claims could be useful. By examining your claim to know something you couldn't possibly know you can learn something about the religious experience (of some people) through the lens of your own behavior. Or not, as you prefer. Again, not an evangelist here, just a wannabe philosopher. You say potato, I say potawto. You know the drill. :-)

On issues of such enormous scale as addressed by the God concept, if you're persuaded you know the difference between fact and fiction, you haven't fully grown up yet. Instead, you've just migrated from one fantasy knowing story to another. — Hippyhead

Allow me an AMEN!

Allow me an AMEN! — Frank Apisa

Your application has been approved. :-)

Invalid because your first premise is false.
2h — 180 Proof

Really, I don't understand, how so? Or are you just trolling again LOL

In Christianity:

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.
4h

What does this say apart from that christians believe stuff that is not true?

Logically, it says God existed.

:up:

AH, but that's Christian logic...

It's the logic that says god is omniscient and yet benevolent; that he loves you and yet will send you to hell; that bread is flesh, wine is blood; that worships a zombie and encourages ritual cannibalism; that rejects abortion but will not help the needy; that ignores pedophilia in its institutions; that three are one; that rejects love if it is between a man and another man...

So why would anyone else pay it any attention?

Or to you?

Really, I don't understand, how so? — 3017amen

Of course you don't, lil troll - that's why you wrote that false premise. :roll: Hint: More or less like the selections of canonical NT scriptures, The Nicene Creed was written declaring 'Jesus is "in part God"' only in order to appease the demands of a pagan emperor who, believing himself divine (i.e. avatar of Jupiter, Mithras or whatever) according to Roman tradition, could not make Christianity the official religion of the empire - and thereby be baptized into "the faith" - if the Christians' so-called "messiah" was only a "blessed", but not divine, human being, which had been an unsettled controversy for centuries since the earliest churches and congregational synods. True to form: you don't know what you are talking about, lil troll, and project your own failings on those who take issue with yours.

First you have to tell us what "God" is.

The Nicene Creed was written declaring 'Jesus is "in part God"' only in order to appease the demands of a pagan emperor who, believing himself divine (i.e. avatar of Jupiter, Mithras or whatever) according to Roman tradition, could not make Christianity the official religion of the empire - and thereby be baptized into "the faith" - if the Christians' so-called "messiah" was only a "blessed", but not divine, human being, as most of the early churches had taught & congregations had believed for centuries.

So did they add the story of the annunciation and the ascension etc?

Perhaps the best example is the Book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. Was there a guy, a gal, and a talking snake? Probably not. That part is probably just a fable which tries to explain something profound to uneducated peasants of 3,000 years ago, much as we might try to explain sex to a five year old.

You raise a good point, the allegory was a means of conveying wisdom amongst uneducated (relatively) populations. Something which has been practiced for millennia and long before modern religions like Christianity came along.

But is our relationship with knowledge a central fact of our personal human experience? Is that relationship causing us to race towards ejection from the garden of eden of the biosphere in our own time? Does the Adam and Eve story reference something which could be profoundly true? Maybe it does.

Quite.

My guess is that there were some quite wise people in ancient times, and they tried to share what they saw in the cultural medium of their time. That cultural medium is now very out of date, but that doesn't automatically equal their insights being useless.

Indeed, the book of Revelation might be appropriate. Wisdom is something which isn't recognised in the modern world, but was of great importance in the past when peoples didn't have the extensive teachings available to us now. Even now wisdom is invaluable in steering our civilisation forward. Although we currently have a problem with our leaders who seem to have buried their heads up their own backsides rather than seek out wide council ( revelation indeed).

IIRC, the zealot Saul of Tarsus' secretary ("holy ghost writer") and hagiographer (apologist) Luke embellished and amended the so-called Gospel of Mark with "the annunciation and ascension" (frame).

I don't want to get into a discussion of scripture, but the annunciation isn't mentioned in Mark and the resurrection comes across as someone who has gone to heaven. It is common for religious organisations to embellish their message, more human frailty.

You've misread me. I stated the Luke "embellished and amended" Mark's Gospel but not that Luke added to that document. In other words, the Gospel of Luke itself is comprised of Mark + "the annunciation and ascension" + (etcetera).

It is common for religious organisations to embellish their message ...

Yeah - propaganda, apologia, polemics ... marketing for fund-raising, etc.

You raise a good point, the allegory was a means of conveying wisdom amongst uneducated (relatively) populations. — Punshhh

What interests me is that the wisdom shared in the Adam and Eve story is credibly claimed to be of high quality. It depends of course on how one interprets that story, and there are many different interpretations, and no way to know for sure what meaning the original authors intended. That disclaimed, we can explore further.

PERSONAL: On the personal level of every day experience we can see that most of the time we are focused not on reality, but on our thoughts about reality. From the perspective of the story, we have eaten the apple of knowledge and are then banished from the real world Eden and confined to a significant degree to a much smaller arena of our own invention, the conceptual realm. We rule like gods over this conceptual realm between our ears, but it is a very small realm in comparison to "God's kingdom" ie. the real world.

SOCIAL: It's not hard to see that our relationship with knowledge is causing the modern world to careen towards some kind of coming Biblical scale calamity. From the perspective of the Genesis story, we have eaten the apple of knowledge and are about to expel ourselves from the Garden of Eden.

If one is willing to entertain such an interpretation of the Genesis story, we can ask how ancient authors could so accurately predict the future of humanity. I don't think we need god claims to explain this.

My theory is that the ancient authors had a profound understanding of the fundamental human condition, perhaps because they lived out in the desert in a tent and there was nothing else to do?
Point being, human beings haven't really changed much in 3,000 years so if one understands the human condition it should be possible to generally predict where that path will lead, even if one is unable to predict details such as climate change, nuclear weapons etc.

So, one can reasonably decline the fairy tale container the story comes in, but it might be a mistake to throw the insight baby out with the fairy tale bath water.

Instead of tossing the teachings of our Judeo-Christian heritage aside with a lazy sweep of the hand, it might be more rational to work on translating the teachings out of fairy tale stories in to other forms which are more accessible to modern audiences.

Again, the paradigm here is art, not science. A novel can be interpreted in many different ways, and there is no way to definitely settle the question of which interpretation is best. That doesn't automatically equal the novel being crap.

A good philosophy professor will not tell you what to think, but will instead feed you questions that cause you to do your own thinking. Art, and religion, can be like that.

A good philosophy professor will not tell you what to think, but will instead feed you questions that cause you to do your own thinking. Art, and religion, can be like that. — Hippyhead

Sort of like the response to "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."

Don't "try to make him drink." Make him thirsty!

Mostly, what we have in this thread are people saying things motivated by their guesses on the question of whether there are any gods or not.

Some guess there is at least one god...and argue based on that.

Some guess there are none...and argue based on that.

Interesting arguments.

And if one recognizes they are the product of guesswork...of no particular harm.

And if one recognizes they are the product of guesswork...of no particular harm. — Frank Apisa

Of no particular harm if one's goal is debating, which is probably usually the case here.

Going endlessly round and round on guess work claims that can never be proven or disproven might be labeled a kind of distraction harm if one's goal is to conduct an investigation.

It's the logic that says god is omniscient and yet benevolent; that he loves you and yet will send you to hell; that bread is flesh, wine is blood; that worships a zombie and encourages ritual cannibalism; that rejects abortion but will not help the needy; that ignores pedophilia in its institutions; that three are one; that rejects love if it is between a man and another man... — Banno

That's not logic nor history, it's philosophy ( to put it nicely).

True to form: you don't know what you are talking about, lil troll, and project your own failings on those who take issue with yours. — 180 Proof

Hiding behind ad hominin only weakens your credibility there. The simple answer is, from the Christian Bible, Jesus was known to be God (and of course man/son of God). And so the syllogism still holds.

Not sure what all the fuss is about. Unless of course you're simply disgruntled over the truth about Christianity, not sure... .

If it is "known", then provide or indicate evidence which corroborates the claims of the Christian Bible. Nothing and no one ever has in over nineteen centuries (which is why the Council of Nicea (325 CE) was necessary - to decide by committee what had / could not be shown to be the case about Jesus' purported "divinity"). Anecdotes or avowals count no more as "knowing" than do hallucinations or fairytales. And your say-so, 3017, doesn't make it so; uncorroborated, (your) claim that "from the Christian Bible, Jesus was known to be God" is false - not "known" - merely believed, as they say, by "grace", etc (i.e. FAITH).

And so the syllogism still holds.
Not sure what all the fuss is about. Unless of course you're simply disgruntled over the truth about Christianity, not sure... . — 3017amen

As noted before, your "syllogism" is not a syllogism - if that is of any interest to you. Next, there's Christian truth, which is grounded, based in, belief. Which is not to be confused with the "truth about Christianity," and nor is Christian truth to be confused with truth itself. Except by ignorant people who aspire to and achieve stupidity by insisting on being confused on exactly these things, most usually by making fundamentalist claims their beliefs are actually true, which no real Christian would do. Fundamentalism itself being, as the name suggests, a variety of sickness, and the sufferers of which prey to the evils which use them for their on purposes.

Most religions are essentially good, which goodness is often perverted by all of the diseases of spirit and will that people can devise for themselves to suffer from. To be a real Christian, or, I suppose, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, or any of a thousand others, takes spiritual courage that those who flee to "reality" cannot marshal. hence their flight.

When you wear your cowardice and ignorance and stupidity and lack of spirit as a badge - as you do, 3017 - you make of yourself an evil thing, beyond pity. In any case the words you write here are of no account, and all you've done is be to some degree successfully provocative and annoying. Not much of a CV.

If it is "known", then provide or indicate evidence which corroborates the claims of the Christian Bible — 180 Proof

I would be glad to, but this is more or less an atheist site and I was not told to quote Christian Scripture. It's definitely in there, I double checked... .

Think of it this way, as history reads, Jesus was crucified, in part, because at the time he was disliked and known to be the son of God.

And so, not sure what your argument is... . If you're saying one should not believe in history books, then make your case, I'd be more than happy to navigate that territory.

If you're saying one should not believe in history books, — 3017amen

One should first understand what history is, to understand hat history books are, and then one may approach their contents. In any case, the Christian Bible is no history book, nor does any but the fond think it is.

As noted before, your "syllogism" is not a syllogism - if that is of any interest to you. — tim wood

Why isn't this a syllogism (for reference)?

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.

I mean, it meets the basic criteria of; All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B.

Alternatively, I'll be happy to re-arrange it, if you feel it isn't sound. For example, would proposition/premise one read better if I changed it to ' 1. Jesus was known as the son of God'. (?)

the Christian Bible is no history book, — tim wood

Really? I thought it recorded Christianity.

Syllogisms of the sort you're "using" have three terms. Count your terms; you have four. And that even has a name, the fallacy of the four terms.

That's one of many tests for validity. The truth of any conclusion depends on the premises being true.

And The Lord of the RIngs? You have to be able to tell the difference between history and story.

to quote Christian Scripture — 3017amen

That would be irrelevant since "to quote scripture" does not corroborate the claims of scripture.

... not sure what your argument is... . If you're saying one should not believe in history books ...

Whoa. :yikes: I gave you waaaaay too much intellectual credit, 3017. If you think the Christian Bible is a "history book", then ... ok. I'm done here, apologies for wasting your time and, especially, mine. :sweat:

:up:

Syllogisms of the sort you're "using" have three terms. Count your terms; you have four. And that even has a name, the fallacy of the four terms. — tim wood

There are no limits to how many premises a syllogism can have. The basic syllogism is three terms, but if you feel it commits a fallacy, I'd be happy to re-arrange them if you like!

I find that 3017, et al, is like a mole in a whack-a-mole game that says, F*** you," every time you hit it, like some kind of obscene squeeze toy. The which, alas and unfortunately, just makes me want to hit it again. Tar-baby is another term. I have trouble even imaging why anyone would want to be, aspire to be, work to be, such a thing. But I think I'll try to keep course with you and keep away. Maybe there's a Bill for this problem.