The God Who Wasn't There

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: The_Genius I don't think anything... I know it's garbage. Extremely subjective.

That's good to hear...you not thinking anything. I suppose that makes sense, but let us all know when you start thinking for yourself before you spout your undeniable knowledge of the universe.

And subjective? Biased? It's trying to make a point. That's like saying that anything that argues against another platform is biased simply because the efforts of the former argument had a plan of attack before its investigation. No shit.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser For the benefit of any who might be following this thread, I submit these various translations of Hebrews 8:1: (ALT) Now [this is the] main point about the [things] being said: we have such a High Priest who sat down at [the] right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, (ASV) Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is this: We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, (BBE) Now of the things we are saying this is the chief point: We have such a high priest, who has taken his place at the right hand of God's high seat of glory in heaven, (CEV) What I mean is that we have a high priest who sits at the right side of God's great throne in heaven. (DRB) Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such an high priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens, (EMTV) Now this is the main point of the things being said: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, (ESV) Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, (Geneva) Nowe of the things which we haue spoken, this is the summe, that wee haue such an hie Priest, that sitteth at the right hand of the throne of the Maiestie in heauens, (GNB) The whole point of what we are saying is that we have such a High Priest, who sits at the right of the throne of the Divine Majesty in heaven. (GNT) Κεφάλαιον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις, τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα, ὃς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, (GNT-TR) κεφαλαιον δε επι τοις λεγομενοις τοιουτον εχομεν αρχιερεα ος εκαθισεν εν δεξια του θρονου της μεγαλωσυνης εν τοις ουρανοις (GW) The main point we want to make is this: We do have this kind of chief priest. This chief priest has received the highest position, the throne of majesty in heaven. (ISV) Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we do have this kind of high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. (KJV+) Now1161 of1909 the things which we have spoken3004 this is the sum:2774 We have2192 such5108 a high priest,749 who3739 is set2523 on1722 the right hand1188 of the3588 throne2362 of the3588 Majesty3172 in1722 the3588 heavens;3772 (KJVA) Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; (LITV) Now a summary over the things being said: We have such a High Priest, who sat down on the right of the throne of the Majesty in Heaven, Psa. 110:1 (Murdock) Now the sum of the whole is this, we have a High Priest, who is seated on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven: Strong's numbers are given in the KJV+ version. If your argument is because I substituted "Jesus" for "who" (strictly to IDENTIFY the 'who' in question), it is baseless. A reading from Chapter 7 of Hebrews, which continues over into Chapter 8, identifies 'who' the writer is referring to...it is none other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Here's a great idea: defend passages in question with the passages themselves. It has the intellectual validity of defining a word with that word.

"What does evasion mean? It means... well... evasion. lol"

[jascowhiz0]

Its all about context. You can say the bible says kill gays, then it says don't kill anyone. Didn't read the passages or why he used them, but the context is whats needed to interpret the meaning of the words and to determine context you need passages.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 Its all about context. You can say the bible says kill gays, then it says don't kill anyone. Didn't read the passages or why he used them, but the context is whats needed to interpret the meaning of the words and to determine context you need passages.

All the context in the world cannot prove when a text was written.

Centuries from now, archeologists unearth a journal dating from the end of the 20th century / beginning of the 21st century. In it, there is a passage which reads, "I can't wait to get to New York and climb to the top of the World Trade center and see all around from up there."

Scholars would conclude this journal entry was written pre 9/11... but that doesn't prove it was written pre 9/11. If we learn other parts of the journal don't match up with earlier events and find out some individuals stand to gain from this mis-dating then we don't automatically conclude it's real / happened / gospel... unless we're conditioned from childhood to do so.

[loser]

Scholars would conclude this journal entry was written pre 9/11... but that doesn't prove it was written pre 9/11. If we learn other parts of the journal don't match up with earlier events and find out some individuals stand to gain from this mis-dating then we don't automatically conclude it's real / happened / gospel... unless we're conditioned from childhood to do so.

Which makes EVERYTHING EVER WRITTEN (scholarly journals, textbooks, biographies, mathematical 'proofs'...EVERYTHING!) not worth the paper it is written on. If you applied the same cynicism that you have towards anything written in the Bible to everything else written, you'd be faithless, indeed.

This is why in the judicial system, adjudicates are told to only consider proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". What a loaded gun that is! Because if anything is a certainty, it's that people are nothing if not unreasonable.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: loser Which makes EVERYTHING EVER WRITTEN (scholarly journals, textbooks, biographies, mathematical 'proofs'...EVERYTHING!) not worth the paper it is written on. If you applied the same cynicism that you have towards anything written in the Bible to everything else written, you'd be faithless, indeed. This is why in the judicial system, adjudicates are told to only consider proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". What a loaded gun that is! Because if anything is a certainty, it's that people are nothing if not unreasonable.

Most other papers don't claim universal truth with an organized canonical law system, have led to a 2000+ year old place in world history, and lead 2 billion followers...

[Kamehameha34]

I think people are confusing proof with evidence.

There is evidence, not proof, for scientific laws, scholarly journals, etc. There is none for the occurence of the stories entailed in the bible.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: loser Which makes EVERYTHING EVER WRITTEN (scholarly journals, textbooks, biographies, mathematical 'proofs'...EVERYTHING!) not worth the paper it is written on.

Of course it doesn't. What a ridiculous rebuttal?

The example I gave of going up into the world trade center clearly illustrates the flaw of Christianity's "internal evidence" as a tool for dating. Your knee-jerk reaction is laughable: textbooks, biographies and mathematical proofs do not rely of internal evidence the way the gospels rely on so-called internal evidence.

If you applied the same cynicism [I believe you meant to state "skepticism"] that you have towards anything written in the Bible to everything else written, you'd be faithless, indeed.

A uniform skepticism applied to all claims is exactly what I have. If we define faith as "belief without evidence" then yes, I am indeed 'faithless'.

This is why in the judicial system...

Red herring.

We aren't interested in the legal system. Since you brought it up, though, allow me to correct you. In the American legal system, the claim of guilt is false until proven true with evidence and logic. In the god who wasn't there, we see clearly that Christians presume there god has been proven when in fact nothing could be further from the case.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There is none for the occurence of the stories entailed in the bible.

Don't be silly. You're an agnostic, Kame. You can't actually take a definate stance on anything theistic other than to say it's "possible".

Please keep your story straight.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Zhavric Don't be silly. You're an agnostic, Kame. You can't actually take a definate stance on anything theistic other than to say it's "possible". Please keep your story straight.

There's a difference between choosing a stance on theism and acknowledging different stances on that same theistic idea. For example, as an agnostic, I acknowledge that the possibility of a God is highly unlikely, but in regards to absolute knowledge of that, I have none, so I admit it's possibility, as you said. Nonetheless, my stance on all religions is that I wish they were gone; realistically, I can't imagine a higher being hiding from us any more after he realizes people don't believe in him anymore.

[Zhavric]

I would really love to know what it is about volconvo.com that causes atheists to claim they're agnostic and for agnostics to turn to fundamentalist agnosticism.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Zhavric I would really love to know what it is about volconvo.com that causes atheists to claim they're agnostic and for agnostics to turn to fundamentalist agnosticism.

It's political.

[Jack]

in regards to absolute knowledge of that, I have none, so I admit it's possibility

No one will have, has or has ever had absolute proof of anything. If you wait until you posses absolute proof of anything you'll never reach a decision about anything. When you sit down, do you have absolute proof the chair will support you? Have you stopped driving because you can't have absolute proof that you won't die in a collision? Demanding absolute proof of gods instead of using your logic and good sense to see that no one has ever proven their existence is simply a way of avoiding taking a stance that until proof is offered, the notion of gods is not worthy of consideration.

What's the difference in asking me to believe that unicorns exist because no one has yet offered absolute proof they don't? I don't need absolute proof to reach a conclusion. And my conclusion needn't be absolute either. I don't believe in gods or unicorns due to lack of reason to believe. Should someone provide credible evidence that they do, I'll gladly change my conclusion.

I would really love to know what it is about volconvo.com that causes atheists to claim they're agnostic and for agnostics to turn to fundamentalist agnosticism.

I think we too often don't appreciate the stigma attached to someone willing to announce their atheism. In this country, on this planet, it's not the most popular stance to take.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Isherwood No one will have, has or has ever had absolute proof of anything. If you wait until you posses absolute proof of anything you'll never reach a decision about anything. When you sit down, do you have absolute proof the chair will support you? Have you stopped driving because you can't have absolute proof that you won't die in a collision? Demanding absolute proof of gods instead of using your logic and good sense to see that no one has ever proven their existence is simply a way of avoiding taking a stance that until proof is offered, the notion of gods is not worthy of consideration. What's the difference in asking me to believe that unicorns exist because no one has yet offered absolute proof they don't? I don't need absolute proof to reach a conclusion. And my conclusion needn't be absolute either. I don't believe in gods or unicorns due to lack of reason to believe. Should someone provide credible evidence that they do, I'll gladly change my conclusion.

I think we see the universe completely different. When I think about the Earth, yes I agree, give me evidence for everything. But out there, in the nothingness we just call "space," I think we need a different viewpoint. For example, I kind of look at the final frontier like an empty box. We have no idea what's inside. It could be anything. Now, just because I don't have evidence of anything being in the box, does that mean I then think there's nothing in the box; on the contrary, I'm open to all ideas on what's in the box, until we find a key to open it.

But like I said, on Earth, this is where we can explore for ourselves and answer our own questions and determine our own fates, so I look at Earth and the box will completely separate viewpoints. I hope you kind of understand what I'm trying to say.

[Zhavric]

Your stance is critically flawed. We must demand evidence of all things and be open to examining any new evidence that comes along. We are, however, under absolutely no obligation to throw away evidence we already have or throw away logic.

We can and do know things about the universe beyond Earth.

How would you answer the following questions:

"There is a wal-mart on Pluto." True or false?

"Space dust is demonstrably intelligent." True or false?

"Comets often change their course according to their own whim." True or false?

"Human beings and other intelligent life forms existed at the beginning of the universe." True or false?

Look at the second and fourth questions. The answer to both of them are false. We know complicated life forms don't just pop into existence. We know things smart enough to examine themselves are the result of billions of years of gradual processes.

So, claiming something as sophisticated as god existed around the time the universe began is several magnitudes more invalid than claiming humans existed.

To get back to the thread topic, if you demand evidence of all things on Earth, you need to make a distinction between valid evidence and questionable evidence (that may be propaganda). Tobacco companies have a vested interest in keeping people smoking. Thus, reading the studies they comission isn't the best source to find out if smoking is harmful to you.

What's more, if you ASSUME smoking is healthy and dismiss anything proving it unhealthy as conspiracy theory, you'll never get at the truth...

... yet this is EXACTLY how most individuals go about examining the claims of their own religion. They look to the church and scholars who are affiliated with the church who all have a vested interest in perpetuating "the faith".

Looking at all the evidence and concluding "Jesus existed" is akin to looking at 1+1= and concluding "3"; it's only a conclusion one can come to based on indoctrination and propaganda.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Zhavric Your stance is critically flawed. We must demand evidence of all things and be open to examining any new evidence that comes along. We are, however, under absolutely no obligation to throw away evidence we already have or throw away logic. We can and do know things about the universe beyond Earth.

I never said to throw away evidence or logic. The only things we can be practically sure of in the universe is that which we can interact with, study, learn about, etc. The universe, as far as we know, doesn't always follow what's logical, and not always what's more efficient, just a couple nearly constant principles to nature on Earth. I see it as completely pointless to appease ourselves by formulating universal theories while we haven't even seen the outer limits of the universe, nor have we really explored space to even a mediocre potential. So I guess it depends on what you mean "we know."

Quote by: Zhavric "There is a wal-mart on Pluto." True or false?

A wal-mart? Haha no. The makers of wal-mart don't own space ships. Reword your pathetic question to: is there an underground alien shop on Pluto? And honestly, I just couldn't tell you I would be absolutely, 100%, bet-my-life-on-it sure it was false.

Quote by: Zhavric "Space dust is demonstrably intelligent." True or false?

I've felt space dust before. Scientists have studied it with their own eyes. It's not intelligent. False.

Quote by: Zhavric "Comets often change their course according to their own whim." True or false?

I've studied comets before, and scientists have been able to determine complete and precise compositions of everything within a comet; in that same regard, all of its components are Earth-identifiable and so I'd say that's false since comets we've seen so far haven't contained forms of life nor does the dust that makes up most comets. Although, if one did contain life, and say it was intelligible beyond our knowledge, I don't see why they couldn't change the course of comets.

Quote by: Zhavric "Human beings and other intelligent life forms existed at the beginning of the universe." True or false?

I have no idea. Neither do you. No one does. It's that simple.

Use your logic, your reason, your guesses, anything that makes you happy. But I'm telling you, you can't be 100% sure simply because if the universe were the astrodome, your range of knowledge extends only the area of a kernel flake from a piece of popcorn.

Quote by: Zhavric Look at the second and fourth questions. The answer to both of them are false. We know complicated life forms don't just pop into existence. We know things smart enough to examine themselves are the result of billions of years of gradual processes. So, claiming something as sophisticated as god existed around the time the universe began is several magnitudes more invalid than claiming humans existed.

We *don't* know complicated life forms don't just pop into existence. We know that's never happened on Earth, and thus shouldn't ever happen in our human history, but that's it. Also, bear in mind you are assuming that the universe "began" in the first place. Also, maybe not humans, but another intelligible being, another intelligible entity...who knows.

Quote by: Zhavric To get back to the thread topic, if you demand evidence of all things on Earth, you need to make a distinction between valid evidence and questionable evidence (that may be propaganda). Tobacco companies have a vested interest in keeping people smoking. Thus, reading the studies they comission isn't the best source to find out if smoking is harmful to you. What's more, if you ASSUME smoking is healthy and dismiss anything proving it unhealthy as conspiracy theory, you'll never get at the truth... ... yet this is EXACTLY how most individuals go about examining the claims of their own religion. They look to the church and scholars who are affiliated with the church who all have a vested interest in perpetuating "the faith". Looking at all the evidence and concluding "Jesus existed" is akin to looking at 1+1= and concluding "3"; it's only a conclusion one can come to based on indoctrination and propaganda.

No shit Zhavric, I already said my beliefs about Earth specific ideas are run on a different method than ideas about the universe. I won't smoke because I have access to all kinds of INFORMATION that specifically outlines facts and data about those specific cigarettes and that specific company. I won't make generalizations about the beginning middle and end of our universe because I don't have that information whatsoever, only the miniscule amount of data we've collected in the blink-of-an-eye time humans have had on Earth.

[ZNFYRH]

I have noticed that this thread is degenerating into something that has happened on this forum before.

If I might be allowed the observation, Zhavric, you tend to use "the universe" as basis for your arguments, yet the universe itself is full of unknowns. You are basically trying to pass off "what humans know so far" as "this is the absolute truth about everything." You fall back on a statement of "until we learn something else" at times, but you shouldn't be pointing to a question mark and telling people it's something concrete.

Others in this thread are falling into the same pattern of response to Zhavric. You're trying to argue with him. Instead of just pointing out that the support for his argument is tentative understanding, you're allowing him to get away with it and are arguing with him anyway.

I would say "shame on you" to both sides. To Zhavric for trying to pass off something written in pencil, so to speak, as though it were carved in stone, and to the rest of you for believing it's carved in stone without asking to be shown the actual tablet.

For those of you who think a God created the universe, show me some proof that he did.

For those of you who think that a God did not create the universe, show me some proof that he didn't (either due to lack of interest or lack of existence).

The first one to show me proof will make history, because the greatest minds in human history have yet to find the proof of either side. Why or with each other?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Me, the Zhav "Human beings and other intelligent life forms existed at the beginning of the universe." True or false?

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 I have no idea. Neither do you. No one does. It's that simple.

What silly assertions?

We know that humans evolved from other life forms. We know they evolved on this planet. We know when and how the planet formed. We know it happened billions of years after the universe was created. So, this know-nothing stance of yours is intellectually bankrupt and completely inconsistant with your earlier answer:

Quote by: me "There is a wal-mart on Pluto." True or false?

Quote by: you A wal-mart? Haha no.

You're sure humans haven't reached Pluto, but you're willing to state humans could have existed at the beginning of the universe when there wasn't anything around to support them (things like planets, food, oxygen, etc.)???

Please.

Did you answer the above question on the basis that no Wal-mart has been observed on Pluto? Perhaps because no one has observed a rocket bearing a W leaving for Pluto? I certainly hope not as it would mean you contradicted yourself again:

We *don't* know complicated life forms don't just pop into existence.

We *don't* know complicated life forms don't just pop into existence. We know that's never happened on Earth, and thus shouldn't ever happen in our human history, but that's it.

Perhaps the wal-mart is there and you just missed it, yes? :confused:

The thread is supposed to be about the fact Jesus never existed. Let's get back on track now.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Zhavric What silly assertions? We know that humans evolved from other life forms. We know they evolved on this planet. We know when and how the planet formed. We know it happened billions of years after the universe was created. So, this know-nothing stance of yours is intellectually bankrupt and completely inconsistant with your earlier answer: You're sure humans haven't reached Pluto, but you're willing to state humans could have existed at the beginning of the universe when there wasn't anything around to support them (things like planets, food, oxygen, etc.)??? Please. Did you answer the above question on the basis that no Wal-mart has been observed on Pluto? Perhaps because no one has observed a rocket bearing a W leaving for Pluto? I certainly hope not as it would mean you contradicted yourself again: Perhaps the wal-mart is there and you just missed it, yes? :confused: The thread is supposed to be about the fact Jesus never existed. Let's get back on track now.

Haha, throw in your argument...then "Let's get back on track now." Be my guest, but my entire platform was ENTIRELY speculation, and yet somehow you think I've contradicted myself, like you think my opinions on what could possibly be the truth are absolutely dead wrong. If you don't want a confusing answer you can't accept then don't ask fuzzy questions with confusing answers. Just because I don't have to content myself with a feeling of absolute knowledge makes me more open minded, not closed. I apply that method to all my learning.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Haha, throw in your argument...then "Let's get back on track now." Be my guest,

The thread is about the alleged existence of Jesus and the movie debunking that myth. You're WAY off-topic.

but my entire platform was ENTIRELY speculation, and yet somehow you think I've contradicted myself, like you think my opinions on what could possibly be the truth are absolutely dead wrong.

They are. I demonstrated as much. The answer to "were humans around at the beginning of time?" is not 'unknown'. Unknown implies the answer could be other than false and we have evidence proving that's not the case.

If you don't want a confusing answer you can't accept then don't ask fuzzy questions with confusing answers.

There was nothing confusing about your answers. I understood them to be wrong quite well as I demonstrated.

Just because I don't have to content myself with a feeling of absolute knowledge makes me more open minded, not closed. I apply that method to all my learning.

Being 'open minded' is a virtue when considering other cultures and when considering proffered evidence.

It is not a virtue when considering logical matters.

I nor anyone else is under any obligation to consider a demonstrably false claim to be true. Indirectly slinging impotent insults ("close minded") only illustrates your inability or unwillingness to actually rebut what I've stated.

The idea that you apply this open mindedness to all of your learning is ridiculous. Was Plato's writing influenced by 20th century poets? Did Rome attack Hiroshima after the Americans nuked it? No? Well, I guess you're just being "close minded", yes?

What is your stance on Jesus? Do you believe he existed? Where is your evidence?