Does a God exist?

[SteveII]

I read the entire Wikipedia article on the Essenes. Did not mention anything about "dying and rising leader/teacher". I think you underestimate the just how radical an idea that a 'messiah dies for our sins therefore allowing a personal relationship with God' is. 

Your definition of belief is off. From Wikipedia: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. "

The wikipedia article... lol...
Maybe you should have looked into this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher_of_Righteousness
But... wiki... we all know how biased it can be...
Maybe historians are better at explaining things?
http://www.shareintl.org/archives/M_emer...eacher.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...19666.html
http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/deadsea.htm


On belief, thank you for the definition. This one you gave is a bit too inclusive... to the point where knowledge must be defined as "justified true belief". How about we leave this philosophical definition and use the common understanding?
belief - to think that something is the case, without evidence to attest it.
knowledge - to think that something is the case, with evidence that attests to it.

What does a leader of a small Jewish sect that was killed prove? The Jews were looking for a messiah because one is promised. It does not follow that the mistaken identity of one person has any bearing on the truth of another being the messiah. 

No, belief has a very common meaning. If you want to change the definition of belief, you are going to confuse everyone.

[LadyForCamus]

Why should anyone need to believe in Gravity?  When I hold a ball in the air and let go, it falls.  Ta da!   Gravity.  No beliefs necessary.

I think that this usage does give new meaning, to the definition heard often here, that atheism is a lack of belief in God!

Sure...except you've completely missed the point. Belief in Gravity is unnecessary because Gravity is demonstrable. God is not.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that this usage does give new meaning, to the definition heard often here, that atheism is a lack of belief in God!

Sure...except you've completely missed the point.  Belief in Gravity is unnecessary because Gravity is demonstrable.  God is not.

My comment was based on what was said to be the common usage of the term "believe". I don't believe this to be correct, and if you told me that "you don't believe in gravity", I think it would merit more than a funny look (as well as an explanation).  I would think that it is reasonable that if gravity is demonstrated, that belief in gravity would logically follow.  The re-defining of the word "knowledge" could also lead to an interesting conversation.

But since you are saying that I am missing the point; can you please elaborate besides the obvious definitional implication what conclusion you come to, from that which is not-demonstrable?  How does that tie into "belief" vs "knowledge"?

[pocaracas]

The wikipedia article... lol...
Maybe you should have looked into this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher_of_Righteousness
But... wiki... we all know how biased it can be...
Maybe historians are better at explaining things?
http://www.shareintl.org/archives/M_emer...eacher.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...19666.html
http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/deadsea.htm


On belief, thank you for the definition. This one you gave is a bit too inclusive... to the point where knowledge must be defined as "justified true belief". How about we leave this philosophical definition and use the common understanding?
belief - to think that something is the case, without evidence to attest it.
knowledge - to think that something is the case, with evidence that attests to it.

What does a leader of a small Jewish sect that was killed prove? The Jews were looking for a messiah because one is promised. It does not follow that the mistaken identity of one person has any bearing on the truth of another being the messiah. 

Not small.... third largest in the region, by some accounts.
I'm not talking about a mistaken identity, am I? Maybe I hinted at that, before.... I don't know...
I'm just saying that the notion existed well before the alleged time of Christ. Tales grow with time. (it is known)
Writing crystallizes them at a particular point of time... Tell me, how do you know to when the tales of the NT refer?
Do they all agree with the timeframe?
Having been written decades after the alleged arising from the dead, and centuries after a similar notion was floating by the region, how can you trust those tales not to have been an evolution of that underlying and popular theme?

No, belief has a very common meaning. If you want to change the definition of belief, you are going to confuse everyone.

I'm using the common definition of belief.... not the philosophical one.
But I can use the philosophical one, if you'd like... we'll have to keep tabs on how we're applying the word, then, because it carries at least two distinguishable meanings.... similar, but not the same and their differences are relevant.

When I say "I believe my wife is not cheating on me", what do I have to go on, but her say so? (or not even that... just plain trust) How many wives have cheated on their trusting husbands (and vice-versa). This is an example of a belief without evidence to attest it.

When I say "I believe this pen will fall, if let it go from my fingers", then I have a whole bunch of past experiences informing me about the tendency of all bodies to fall to the ground (this at the most basic medieval level of understanding). No body has ever floated away, so why should I not expect the pen to fall? This is an example of belief with evidence to attest for it.
In this case, I can and might as well say "I know this pen will fall, if I let it go from my fingers".


When you say that you believe that the NT writers were trustworthy, you have no evidence to attest that belief.
At most, you can point to the existence of people, at the time, who also believed in their tales.
Knowing about the Essenes, you can even point to a group of people who were primed to receive such tales. They were conditioned to find them in line with their own reasoning... their own beliefs.
Or maybe they were the creators of the tales... the group grew and so did the tales... probably keeping up with the times... it's more impressive if the villain is someone the audience can identify, someone recent, but already deceased, instead of someone from 200 years ago...
Until someone put them in writing, thus freezing the timeframe of the tales...
But others put them in writing, too... others who may have not been aware of the first freezing and these others present a similar story, with a slightly different timeframe. Why? simply because it was written at a different time. The story had grown.
Important details change.... some get added...
It is the normal unfurling of folklore.

But, for some reason, believers are blind to that feature of their tales... but keenly aware of similar features on other mythologies.

[GrandizerII]

I think that this usage does give new meaning, to the definition heard often here, that atheism is a lack of belief in God!

Sure...except you've completely missed the point.  Belief in Gravity is unnecessary because Gravity is demonstrable.  God is not.

Also, gravity is not one of those things that one believes in. Rather, if we want to force the word belief into the equation, we believe (accept) gravity exists.

Personally, I'm fine with saying that I believe gravity exists, but it's much more appropriate for me to say that I KNOW gravity exists. Can RoadRunner honestly say he KNOWS God exists?

[Pat Mustard]

Crap, I'm sorry. How many hail Marys should I say?

Hail Marys?
No, no, no, no.... I'm not that archaic.
I have a sense of humor.

Hail poca!
Hail pocar!
Hail pocara!
Hail pocarac!
Hail pocaraca!
Hail pocaracas!

Hail Pocaracas! Holy Pocaracas!
Hail Pocaracas! Holy Pocaracas!
Hail Pocaracas! Holy Pocaracas!
Hail Pocaracas! Holy Pocaracas!
Hail Pocaracas! Holy Pocaracas!
Hail Pocaracas! Holy Pocaracas!

[Pat Mustard]

On Mark Pocaras has answered you. No need for me to repeat him. On your wikipedia definition, it's wrong. If you have evidence that something exists you don't believe in it. I neither believe in th chair I'm sitting on, the phone I'm posting on nor the pork steak dinner I just et because I have sufficient evidence they all exist. I do not believe in things that can be shown to exist, and neither should you.

Edit: Your 27 corroborating documents are at best 27 tertiary source documents for which we have no primary nor secondary source corroboration, and we know that those 27 documents have been significantly doctored in order to conform to a theology which was largely created after the religion was adopted by the Roman state.

What is your evidence that they have been significantly doctored?    There are some changes, but my understanding is that these do not effect doctrine.   Also, because of the abundance of manuscripts from a across a geographical divide, we can often track many changes to a particular time and place (sometimes to a particular scribe).  And most of the discrepancies are insignificant, anyway.

I don't find that your definition you are using for "believe" to be all that common.   Would it be accurate to say, that you do not believe in gravity?   Would you feel the need to clarify what is meant if so?

The oldest extant bibles stop at Mark 16:8. Everything after is 4th century insertions. Then you've got all the translations into Latin and later into the various vernaculars. Hence KJV is much different is much altered from Vaticanus (despite its use of English that was archaic by its writing). Plus we've got the well documented fact that for hundreds of years gospels deemed acrocryphal were systematically destroyed by church authorities, including as far as we can ascertain the earliest forms of what became the canonical gospels.

[Pat Mustard]

On Mark Pocaras has answered you. No need for me to repeat him. On your wikipedia definition, it's wrong. If you have evidence that something exists you don't believe in it. I neither believe in th chair I'm sitting on, the phone I'm posting on nor the pork steak dinner I just et because I have sufficient evidence they all exist. I do not believe in things that can be shown to exist, and neither should you.

Edit: Your 27 corroborating documents are at best 27 tertiary source documents for which we have no primary nor secondary source corroboration, and we know that those 27 documents have been significantly doctored in order to conform to a theology which was largely created after the religion was adopted by the Roman state.

So, 1) you want to redefine belief and 2) you have no backup for your assertion highlighted above but are willing to reassert it.

No you want to redefine belief because pretending your beliefs are evidence based is easier than going out and finding whether your beliefs can be confimed by evidence or not.

[RoadRunner79]

What is your evidence that they have been significantly doctored?    There are some changes, but my understanding is that these do not effect doctrine.   Also, because of the abundance of manuscripts from a across a geographical divide, we can often track many changes to a particular time and place (sometimes to a particular scribe).  And most of the discrepancies are insignificant, anyway.

I don't find that your definition you are using for "believe" to be all that common.   Would it be accurate to say, that you do not believe in gravity?   Would you feel the need to clarify what is meant if so?

The oldest extant bibles stop at Mark 16:8. Everything after is 4th century insertions. Then you've got all the translations into Latin and later into the various vernaculars. Hence KJV is much different is much altered from Vaticanus (despite its use of English that was archaic by its writing). Plus we've got the well documented fact that for hundreds of years gospels deemed acrocryphal were systematically destroyed by church authorities, including as far as we can ascertain the earliest forms of what became the canonical gospels.

I agree, about the long ending of Mark (and the majority of my Bibles have a note concerning such).   However I think that you and I have a different understanding of what is meant by significantly doctored.   I have spoken online with some Christians who are deriving doctrine from this portion of text, but they are mostly late in theological origin, and do not reflect traditional orthodoxy or most Christian doctrine which is well substantiated by the manuscripts.  I would agree, that a translation is only as good as it reflects the original.  In some cases, I think that an early translation strengthens the manuscript evidence, because it gives a separate line to follow.  I do agree, that it is unfortunate (as well as deplorable), that at times some church authorities destroyed other documents.  Although I also am somewhat understanding, in that they didn't want them to be confused with the history that was handed down from the apostles.  I would be interested in seeing your reasons for why you say, that the Church destroyed the earliest canonical gospels though.

[SteveII]

So, 1) you want to redefine belief and 2) you have no backup for your assertion highlighted above but are willing to reassert it.

No you want to redefine belief because pretending your beliefs are evidence based is easier than going out and finding whether your beliefs can be confimed by evidence or not.

I'm certainly not going to argue further over a definition of a word that can be looked up.

Nothing on the other thing?

Please present your scholarly backup for: "the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy." (when I say scholarly, something more than a 1-off, Christian bashing, obviously biased, never been published in academic journals, popular level book-writing, author). Then we can discuss it.