Does a God exist?

[pocaracas]

We are carbon existing. [1]  You're just playing word games.  We don't exist separate from existing as carbon and other molecules. [2] You've made an existential relationship out of a conceptual one. [3] Providing examples isn't going to clear that error. [4]

1) Exactly! So what is carbon? Whatever that answer is... what is that thing? Either that line of questioning continues forever... or it ends with: what is it? It is 'existing' itself, 'being' itself.

You're doing it again... making "an existential relationship out of a conceptual one".
'existing' itself is not a thing. It is a property of a thing.

2) That is precisely the point!

3) See above. I AM carbon existing in a particular way. Any thing is some other more fundamental thing existing as the greater-whole-thing. Either there is ultimately some fundamental existence, or everything is an infinity of more fundamental existing things. 

4) It looks like it just did! =)

As far as we know, nowadays, at the base of it all is Quarks. Here, education free of charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

[LivingNumbers6.626]

The Mother Mary appeared on my toast this morning. #checkmate

[The Valkyrie]

The Mother Mary appeared on my toast this morning. #checkmate

Was she singing words of wisdom, "Let it be?"

[Angrboda]

You don't think it reasonable.  Well I guess that settles that.

The additional evidence of the existing churches only demonstrates that people believed, not that they believed rightly.

And then you present a false dichotomy that it was either mistake or deception.  And since you don't believe it was mistake, then it had to be deception.

Your claiming the two cases are different doesn't demonstrate that they are different.  Believers in UFOs have their rationalizations.  Believers in conspiracy theories have theirs.  As do believers in Loch Ness, in Krishna, in Allah, etc.  You all look the same from the outside.  You have an incredible belief with a bunch of mundane, inconclusive evidence.  And you all think you are different.

I have never heard a reasonable  plausible scenario that took into account: 

1) that all 8 authors were mistaken that miracles were happening as they followed Jesus around for 3 years, they were mistaken that he rose from the dead after his crucifixion, and how they worked out the common details in time to start writing to

This is nothing but tradition and speculation masquerading as fact.

2) the pre-existing churches who mistakenly believed the same basic thing (of which were not in close proximity to the authors)

A culture of stories coevolved with a developing religious movement. That puts no constraints whatsoever on the original events.

3) the well educated Luke (Luke and Acts account for over a quarter of the NT) went to Jerusalem and wrote a historical narrative of Jesus' life and what follows (read Luke 1:1-4). He was not 'originally mistaken' like the rest would have been yet he was convinced that the events were real after reviewing documents and interviewing witnesses. 

Luke was a collector of stories. Nothing about his doing so precludes him collecting stories that had already developed into myth. This again puts no constraint on the original events.

4) that Paul, who was not part of the original mistaken, changed sides and was thoroughly convinced of the truth of which he wrote.

This is a 'fact' which needs accommodating? No, people adopt religious beliefs all the time. His doing so is no evidence for the original events.

5) the content of the mistaken details were somehow weaved into a complex doctrine that was entirely unexpected, yet eloquent and a 'finished' product so early on, not by scholars, but by fairly common people. In addition, it was not a stand-alone religion, it was thoroughly connected to the OT in that the messiah had come--not as expected, but far better because what is better than a political messiah? a spiritual messiah (more productive, lasts longer). Not only did it connect to the OT, it did not contradict the OT. Not bad for a bunch of uneducated fishermen and a former pharisee to plan so thoroughly that they nailed, not just the foundation, but the entirety of Christianity on the first try and in such a way as to have 2.3 Billion people still believing 2000 years later with no basic alteration. 

That explains the Gnostics then, huh? This is bullshit. It's only coherent in hindsight. This is more tradition masquerading as fact. 

Simply saying that all these people were mistaken is far easier than accommodating all the facts. 

You haven't given me a list of facts that need to be explained. All you've done is wrap up a bunch of assumptions that developed over time into a ball of presuppositions. The normal methods by which folklore evolves is more than adequate to explain these 'facts'. Which is another option besides true or mistaken -- or did you forget the false dichotomy charge.

On the other hand, if you believe that it is possible that God exists, the fact is, it is a much more plausible scenario that it happened just as the NT described. Weird huh?

No, rather mundane actually. When you use assumptions and tradition as evidence for the miracle stories of Jesus, all you get is an absurd conclusion. Funny how that works -- garbage in, garbage out.

[SteveII]

I have never heard a reasonable  plausible scenario that took into account: 

1) that all 8 authors were mistaken that miracles were happening as they followed Jesus around for 3 years, they were mistaken that he rose from the dead after his crucifixion, and how they worked out the common details in time to start writing to

This is nothing but tradition and speculation masquerading as fact.

2) the pre-existing churches who mistakenly believed the same basic thing (of which were not in close proximity to the authors)

A culture of stories coevolved with a developing religious movement.  That puts no constraints whatsoever on the original events.

3) the well educated Luke (Luke and Acts account for over a quarter of the NT) went to Jerusalem and wrote a historical narrative of Jesus' life and what follows (read Luke 1:1-4). He was not 'originally mistaken' like the rest would have been yet he was convinced that the events were real after reviewing documents and interviewing witnesses. 

Luke was a collector of stories.  Nothing about his doing so precludes him collecting stories that had already developed into myth.  This again puts no constraint on the original events.

4) that Paul, who was not part of the original mistaken, changed sides and was thoroughly convinced of the truth of which he wrote.

This is a 'fact' which needs accommodating?  No, people adopt religious beliefs all the time.  His doing so is no evidence for the original events.

5) the content of the mistaken details were somehow weaved into a complex doctrine that was entirely unexpected, yet eloquent and a 'finished' product so early on, not by scholars, but by fairly common people. In addition, it was not a stand-alone religion, it was thoroughly connected to the OT in that the messiah had come--not as expected, but far better because what is better than a political messiah? a spiritual messiah (more productive, lasts longer). Not only did it connect to the OT, it did not contradict the OT. Not bad for a bunch of uneducated fishermen and a former pharisee to plan so thoroughly that they nailed, not just the foundation, but the entirety of Christianity on the first try and in such a way as to have 2.3 Billion people still believing 2000 years later with no basic alteration. 

That explains the Gnostics then, huh?  This is bullshit.  It's only coherent in hindsight.  This is more tradition masquerading as fact. 

Simply saying that all these people were mistaken is far easier than accommodating all the facts. 

You haven't given me a list of facts that need to be explained.  All you've done is wrap up a bunch of assumptions that developed over time into a ball of presuppositions.  The normal methods by which folklore evolves is more than adequate to explain these 'facts'.  Which is another option besides true or mistaken -- or did you forget the false dichotomy charge.

On the other hand, if you believe that it is possible that God exists, the fact is, it is a much more plausible scenario that it happened just as the NT described. Weird huh?

No, rather mundane actually.  When you use assumptions and tradition as evidence for the miracle stories of Jesus, all you get is an absurd conclusion.  Funny how that works -- garbage in, garbage out.

How could all those things be "tradition/assumptions" and the mistaken, yet sincere, writings of the authors? I didn't list any miracles for you to object to yet it seems you are still denying that the NT contains truth even about the non-miracle content. Why isn't assigning the non-miraculous content to "tradition/assumptions" and not "fact" the same thing as saying the authors were lying. Or do you believe all the documents were later substantially altered from some lost original non-miracle containing versions? If so, what is your evidence? If you don't have clear evidence, all you have another theory (conspiracy) to support your mistaken theory. Seems thin.

[robvalue]

Not evolution again, please. Ugh....

Oh go on then. Strawman it one more time.

LOL!  Sorry, Rob.  You're right.  I've been away from the forums a bit so I have a feeling of refreshment,  Don't worry; I'm sure it won't last.  [emoji39]

Welcome back! Nah it's fine. The lurkers can all learn about it when it comes up.

It's just rather astonishing that 99% of science goes totally unchallenged, and is even used in arguments, while the 1% of theories that make theists uncomfortable constantly come under fire. Yet they still stand.

[Ignorant]

'existing' itself is not a thing. It is a property of a thing.

Property? Not really. Existing is an action of a thing. You might say it is the 'primary' or most fundamental action of a thing. If it isn't being (i.e. if it isn't existing) in the first place, then it isn't being any 'thing' at all.

As far as we know, nowadays, at the base of it all is Quarks. Here, education free of charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

If quarks are at the base of it all in the sense that quarks just 'are' without condition, then the demonstration is proven true, and what we have been calling god all of this time is really quarks. The 'search' for a fundamental particle is based upon the conclusion of this demonstration within the context of a universe in which only a material existence is possible.

However, since there are different sorts of quarks, that indicates that conditions exist according to which the different sorts of quarks are differentiated (called flavors). I am happy to be educated about whether or not these are actually different particles or merely different relative to a particular perspectives. But if an 'up' quark exists on the condition that a particular configuration of matter simultaneously exists, while 'down' quarks exist on the condition that a different configuration of matter (and 'more' of it) exists, then it begs the question: "What is the condition that the "up" 'configuration of matter' exists?"

Eventually, you will arrive at the question: "What is the condition that "exists" exists?" There is none... it just is. If nothing else existed, it would still be. If nothing else existed, it would still be existing.

[vorlon13]

LOL!  Sorry, Rob.  You're right.  I've been away from the forums a bit so I have a feeling of refreshment,  Don't worry; I'm sure it won't last.  [emoji39]

Welcome back! Nah it's fine. The lurkers can all learn about it when it comes up.

It's just rather astonishing that 99% of science goes totally unchallenged, and is even used in arguments, while the 1% of theories that make theists uncomfortable constantly come under fire. Yet they still stand.

Yet more cherry picking from the Christers.

Evolution gets scrutiny, Jewish physics that can subjugate the Soviet Empire is exalted knowledge from God.

[robvalue]

I just wish people would go learn what the fuck it is before trying to "debunk" it. It's not like theology where you can just make up whatever stuff you want. It actually has to be testable.

[GrandizerII]

This is nothing but tradition and speculation masquerading as fact.


A culture of stories coevolved with a developing religious movement.  That puts no constraints whatsoever on the original events.


Luke was a collector of stories.  Nothing about his doing so precludes him collecting stories that had already developed into myth.  This again puts no constraint on the original events.


This is a 'fact' which needs accommodating?  No, people adopt religious beliefs all the time.  His doing so is no evidence for the original events.


That explains the Gnostics then, huh?  This is bullshit.  It's only coherent in hindsight.  This is more tradition masquerading as fact. 


You haven't given me a list of facts that need to be explained.  All you've done is wrap up a bunch of assumptions that developed over time into a ball of presuppositions.  The normal methods by which folklore evolves is more than adequate to explain these 'facts'.  Which is another option besides true or mistaken -- or did you forget the false dichotomy charge.


No, rather mundane actually.  When you use assumptions and tradition as evidence for the miracle stories of Jesus, all you get is an absurd conclusion.  Funny how that works -- garbage in, garbage out.

How could all those things be "tradition/assumptions" and the mistaken, yet sincere, writings of the authors?

Uh, this conjunction is not illogical. People can make wrong assumptions while being sincere about them.

Waiting to see when your ad hoc and special pleading and false dilemma fallacies are going to end.