Does a God exist?

[SteveII]

[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]

[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.