Christians - What would you do if it were discovered Jesus never existed?

[GrandizerII]

Which leads to a lot of circular thinking in your case, don't you think?

So to you, knowing the truth and standing by it despite popular belief is circular reason in your world? Does that mean your willingness to believe something is true largly depends on what others think to be true? What if the vast majority of society thought the Jews were sub human plague on society and had 'scientific proof' that they were genetic cast offs and were just a drain on resources? would you believe this without question?

As you can see from this thread, what I believe does not depend on what others believe. But yes, acting like you know the truth and standing by it no matter the evidence contradicting it because your reasoning is that "God is your proof" suggests circular thinking.

In other words, according to your argument, God is true because God is proof. Or God's Word is true because God is proof. Or what God says is true because God is proof. Hopefully, you see the flaw in such argument.

[Drich]

But, again the best anyone could ever do is point to one understanding, or interpretation of Christ and say their is no evidence to substantiate this particular belief. What you seem to fail to grasp is that God is the sole reason for my belief. Not one religious interpretation or another. Meaning I do not rely on what one 'scholar' may say over what another may work to prove. God is my proof. I am not a lemming, I do not follow the crowd simply because the crowd is going in one direction or another. I have sought truth for a very long time and I have found it, and no one will ever be able to take that from me.

So, essentially the answer to the question "what would you do if offered incontrovertible evidence that Jesus never existed?" for you, is "decide that the evidence doesn't count because I've presupposed that I can't possibly be wrong about my religious beliefs."

Shocker.  

Again, sport. What does 'incontrovertible evidence of the non existance' of someone look like? Any tangable evidence will only ever point to that persons existence. That's no little hurdle to over come. if it could have been over come I believe it would have been shortly after the death of Christ. So to argue what if their is proof of the nonexistence of Christ is fallacious reasoning, because such 'proof' can never be manifest.

That's the thing, Because you all never witnessed God for yourself the discussion becomes one of philosophy, which means everything must be 'reasoned' out because one has no experience of God. When one knows God personally, philosophy gets left by the wayside for experience.

[Redbeard The Pink]

"My answer to your hypothetical is that I refuse to consider your hypothetical." How droll.


The hypothetical situation is that, for whatever reason, you have been successfully convinced that Jesus did not exist. That's the hypothetical. Whatever hypothetical evidence it would take, that's what you have. What that evidence actually entails is completely irrelevant to the situation because we're not asking what would convince you. We're wanting to know about you would do if you were hypothetically convinced, and your only response is to demand to know how you were hypothetically convinced. All you're doing is dodging the question by refusing to even remotely entertain the presented hypothesis.

But, again the best anyone could ever do is point to one understanding, or interpretation of Christ and say their is no evidence to substantiate this particular belief. What you seem to fail to grasp is that God is the sole reason for my belief. Not one religious interpretation or another. Meaning I do not rely on what one 'scholar' may say over what another may work to prove. God is my proof. I am not a lemming, I do not follow the crowd simply because the crowd is going in one direction or another. I have sought truth for a very long time and I have found it, and no one will ever be able to take that from me.

Ok, so now what you seem to be saying is that regardless of what hypothetical evidence is being put forward and what it says about Jesus, your "personal experience" with Gaud would lead you to ignore that evidence entirely. Interesting...


I'm sure you've been told that personal revelation/"experience" (read: imaginings) are not actual evidence, and I'm pretty confident you can't be convinced of the veracity of that fact, so I'm not really sure what else to say here. What you're basically saying is that even if you were hypothetically convinced, you still wouldn't be convinced, so you can't imagine what you'd do. Such a copout.


Try this: what would you do if there were enough written, historical evidence to confirm that the human version of Jesus was definitely based on another, purely celestial version of the character who lived and died in the spirit realms, and that this version definitely predates the human story by at least a few decades (suggesting, at minimum, that the human-Jesus story is a complete work of fiction based on an earlier story with no human characters).


Would you ignore this earlier version and figure God must have just been giving them a preview of the human story? Would you realize that both characters are probably fictional? Would you abandon human Jesus and start worshiping the original version? Most importantly, would your morals change? If so, how?

[Drich]

As you can see from this thread, what I believe does not depend on what others believe. But yes, acting like you know the truth and standing by it no matter the evidence contradicting it because your reasoning is that "God is your proof" suggests circular thinking.

In other words, according to your argument, God is true because God is proof. Or God's Word is true because God is proof. Or what God says is true because God is proof. Hopefully, you see the flaw in such argument.

Ah, no. not even close old sport.

Let's start with a proper definition:
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions. Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:
Wellington is in New Zealand.Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.[4]
He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context – that of an argument – means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement; thus, it is a fallacy. He proposes that the context of a dialogue determines whether a circular argument is fallacious: if it forms part of an argument, then it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Now think about this for a minute. What better proof of someone is there, than of the person in question? Let's say you said Obama was just a computer generated image being voiced by Jay Pharro from SNL. and I said no, I met Obama once durning a tour of the white house. Then you wanted to argue all of the philosophical reasons you think Obama is a CG character. Then I offer to take you on the same meet and greet tour to see for yourself, but first you must be vetted/background check (You must submit yourself through a process to see him) Which you decline, on some lunatic fantasy that you are his equal and that if he is real he must prove himself to you by doing the things you want to demonstrate his power and office. When He doesn't you then move to sumize that his inactivity concerning your list of demands is proof that he does not exist thus validating your use of philosophy in the absence of 'select real world proof.'

If all of that was to much for you let me break it down for you using the formula in the definition I provided.

The bible say God is alive, God therefore must be alive because the bible said he was.
A is true (the bible says God is alive) because B is true (God is alive.) B is true (God is alive) because A is true (Because the bible said God is alive.)

Do you see the circle now?

What I said: God is real because I have witnessed Him in my life and He offers you the same experience is not circular reasoning.

[Minimalist]

The difference between the two stories is that one involves an act of penetration (sex) and the other doesn't.

As an old college prof of mine said "it wasn't the finger of god that touched her!"

Same shit, my friend.  A god gets horny and produces a human kid. Don't be dense.

[vorlon13]

LOL, have been trying to figure out how to actualize the topic, and I think I've come up with something:

Zeus comes back and starts fucking with us.

[Drich]

Ok, so now what you seem to be saying is that regardless of what hypothetical evidence is being put forward and what it says about Jesus, your "personal experience" with Gaud would lead you to ignore that evidence entirely. Interesting...

Uh.. yeah. Duh..
You want to trivialize the 'hypothetical evidence' as if it were a fore gone conclusion past any and all scrutiny. when the fact of the matter is the 'hypothetical evidence' is a logical impossibility just short of time travel. you can not dismiss a logical impossibility to witch hunt for what you perceive to be a logical fallacy. I ask you who is making a greater leap of blind stupid faith here? The one who has witnessed and experienced God and with ever fiber of their being know what they witnessed and experienced to be more true than any other truth one can experience, or the one wanting to play out a 'logical senerio' that involves time travel? because as I point out that would be one of the only ways we could have absolute proof, and even then it is only proof of the documentation provided/faith in said time travler.

I'm sure you've been told that personal revelation/"experience" (read: imaginings) are not actual evidence, and I'm pretty confident you can't be convinced of the veracity of that fact, so I'm not really sure what else to say here. What you're basically saying is that even if you were hypothetically convinced, you still wouldn't be convinced, so you can't imagine what you'd do. Such a copout.

Personal experience only validates one's own experiences. But, don't be so quick to dismiss what we experience on a personal level. How do you validate your love for your wife? Kid or 'other?' if not through personal experiences with them.
Now, what if God offered you pinky something as real to YOU as any other relationship you have?

God is not interested in mass worship. Everything that was done was done so we could connect on a personal level. For those who do, this connection is as real as anyother.

Try this: what would you do if there were enough written, historical evidence to confirm that the human version of Jesus was definitely based on another, purely celestial version of the character who lived and died in the spirit realms, and that this version definitely predates the human story by at least a few decades (suggesting, at minimum, that the human-Jesus story is a complete work of fiction based on an earlier story with no human characters).

See my last post. You guys are working on the assumption that I have no other source for validation that what you are willing to acknowledge. Let pretend for a minute everthing the bible says is true. and that God will reach out to those who truly humble themselves before him and follows His program. If and when this happens "Gawd shows up." Now given that experience what philosophical bit of reasoning could possibly unseat you from what you knew to be absolutely true?

If I was as foolish as you all pretend all Christians are and did everything I did and said here to you all based on the historical account of Jesus found in the bible and in other historical points of references then I would have no recourse than to change my reasoning, because my source material would have been found to be in error.

But again that is not the case. God validates the bible by being found right where the bible says look. But again my belief (not faith anymore) is not based just on the bible. I have faith in the bible because of what I have witnessed and experienced in my life. no 'fancy man logic' will ever change that.

Would you ignore this earlier version and figure God must have just been giving them a preview of the human story? Would you realize that both characters are probably fictional? Would you abandon human Jesus and start worshiping the original version? Most importantly, would your morals change? If so, how?

Asked and answer. Except the morals bit.
Yes it would. I am not who I am by nature. I am who I am out of love and respect for God. Therefore I strive to change what I want to what He wants for me. I do a lot out of site of others because it is what God would have me do. 9 times out of 10 it is the hard choice the one that does not benfit me. I Made one of those choices this morning, and it was like a kick in the teeth. what's more no one will ever know, and I do not believe I'll ever benefit from it, but because Jesus said "don't muzzle the ox while treading out the grain." I did what I did. that one hurt. So No God=Muzzling the Ox, because they/this one eats a lot of grain.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The difference between the two stories is that one involves an act of penetration (sex) and the other doesn't.

As an old college prof of mine said "it wasn't the finger of god that touched her!"

Same shit, my friend.  A god gets horny and produces a human kid. Don't be dense.

I wonder why the God didn't produce a giant with Mary like the angels did with women in Genesis 6:4?

[GrandizerII]

As you can see from this thread, what I believe does not depend on what others believe. But yes, acting like you know the truth and standing by it no matter the evidence contradicting it because your reasoning is that "God is your proof" suggests circular thinking.

In other words, according to your argument, God is true because God is proof. Or God's Word is true because God is proof. Or what God says is true because God is proof. Hopefully, you see the flaw in such argument.

Ah, no. not even close old sport.

Let's start with a proper definition:
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions. Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:
Wellington is in New Zealand.Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.[4]
He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context – that of an argument – means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement; thus, it is a fallacy. He proposes that the context of a dialogue determines whether a circular argument is fallacious: if it forms part of an argument, then it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Now think about this for a minute. What better proof of someone is there, than of the person in question? Let's say you said Obama was just a computer generated image being voiced by Jay Pharro from SNL. and I said no, I met Obama once durning a tour of the white house. Then you wanted to argue all of the philosophical reasons you think Obama is a CG character. Then I offer to take you on the same meet and greet tour to see for yourself, but first you must be vetted/background check (You must submit yourself through a process to see him) Which you decline, on some lunatic fantasy that you are his equal and that if he is real he must prove himself to you by doing the things you want to demonstrate his power and office. When He doesn't you then move to sumize that his inactivity concerning your list of demands is proof that he does not exist thus validating your use of philosophy in the absence of 'select real world proof.'

If all of that was to much for you let me break it down for you using the formula in the definition I provided.

The bible say God is alive, God therefore must be alive because the bible said he was.
A is true (the bible says God is alive) because B is true (God is alive.) B is true (God is alive) because A is true (Because the bible said God is alive.)

Do you see the circle now?

What I said: God is real because I have witnessed Him in my life and He offers you the same experience is not circular reasoning.

Your experiences with God are true because you know God is true. But how do you know God is true? Because your experiences with God are true. If that's not circular, I don't know what is.

Regarding your Obama example, I believe Obama is real because (for example) I see him on the news and have no good reason to assume he's fake. But I don't go around saying "Obama is my proof and, therefore, I experience Obama in my life".

If someone were to show me Obama truly didn't exist and was just a hologram or whatever, good. That would be one more piece of detail to add to my body of knowledge/beliefs.

[GrandizerII]

The difference between the two stories is that one involves an act of penetration (sex) and the other doesn't.

As an old college prof of mine said "it wasn't the finger of god that touched her!"

Same shit, my friend.  A god gets horny and produces a human kid. Don't be dense.

Nope, different purpose for each story. The virgin birth was later introduced to the Jesus story in order that he stand out from all other figures born of women. No act of penetration is ever implied in the nativity accounts in the Bible. Whereas with the story of Danae, it is clearly implied with the purpose of simply showing that Perseus was a great hero born of the king of gods. The Greeks didn't care about sinful natures and such.