Epic Debate Over God's Existance

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its the gospel according to Luke, Mark, Matthew,  & John....... Not Dan.

 

Why would there be any historical records of a peasant from Nazareth? There's no historical records outside of the Koran about Mohammad, or for that matter, not much about William Shakespeare either. There were at list 70 apostles sent out who testified about Christ, all of Rome eventually accepted his story as gospel. I doubt an imaginary figure could have changed the world.

 

But nothing would convince a person who chooses not to believe, they will deny it all happened no matter the documentation. I simply choose to roll with it and accept by faith that its true. Note that there's no evidence of anyone from the time saying it wasn't true, no disciple who walked with Christ said, "I didn't see any miracles". No one said, "He has not risen from his tomb, here's his body over here".  It should be easy to prove an untruth, but no one from that time period did because they couldn't.

 

 

Just so.     

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

25 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Alright.  If it's easy to prove an untruth...prove to me that there aren't little green men on the moon who are really good at hiding.

 

 

You're arguing with Dan.     

 

More to the point, you're arguing with Dan's beliefs.     

 

Neither reason nor facts will prevail.     

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

You're arguing with Dan.     

 

More to the point, you're arguing with Dan's beliefs.     

 

Neither reason nor facts will prevail.     

 

 

 

Your right.  He argued that love really meant faith.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

53 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Your right.  He argued that love really meant faith.

 

 

We have already seen how this will play out.  Dan will argue the semantics of different translations.  He will reinforce his argument with Scripture, that has nothing to do with anything.  This will advance into a statement about choosing to have faith.  

 

Dan will then tell you that no amount of evidence will convince you.  In so doing, Dan will demonstrate that he doesn't understand the meaning of evidence.  Finally, Dan will insist that you hate God.  Or Christ.  Or the Bible.  Or Christians.  Generally at this point, Dan will throw in a plaintive question about -- What did Christ do that was so bad?  If you respond, it will start up again.

 

I'm not psychic.  We have seen this play out too many times.  It's tedious and I'm bored.  The icing on the cake is that, yet again, it's all about Dan and his faith.

 

One final observation.  On the notes to the left, under your name, it says "Stoic Atheist".  Do Stoics allow themselves to get trapped, in silly, pointless and endless arguments, with fools?

 

Yes.  I said "fool".  On many occasions, Dan has called us "fools".  He does this by hiding behind Psalm 14:1.

 

"The fool says in his heart......."

 

I'm simply returning the compliment.  After all, I don't wish to be in violation of the terms of service.

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

17 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Alright.  If it's easy to prove an untruth...prove to me that there aren't little green men on the moon who are really good at hiding.

 

We've been to the moon, 12 men have walked on the moon, none of them testified that there were little green men there. Do you believe them? I do.

Coincidentally, 12 men walked with Christ, all of them testified that Jesus was on Earth. You don't believe them, but I do.

 

 

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Finally, Dan will insist that you hate God.  Or Christ.  Or the Bible.  Or Christians.  Generally at this point, Dan will throw in a plaintive question about -- What did Christ do that was so bad? 

 

 

 it's all about Dan and his faith.

 

Yes.  I said "fool".  On many occasions, Dan has called us "fools".  He does this by hiding behind Psalm 14:1.

 

"The fool says in his heart......

 

 

 

I don't insist that you hate the biblical God, you've done that yourself by referring to him as a blood thirsty maniac who commits genocide, kills his own son, etc. 

 

If there is no God, but I believe He exist, then I'm a fool.... If the biblical God is real, but you reject Him, then your the fool... One of us is wrong and making a foolish choice, time will tell.

The only difference is that if I'm wrong, no harm no foul.. But if your wrong?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

I don't insist that you hate the biblical God, you've done that yourself by referring to him as a blood thirsty maniac who commits genocide, kills his own son, etc. 

 

If there is no God, but I believe He exist, then I'm a fool.... If the biblical God is real, but you reject Him, then your the fool... One of us is wrong and making a foolish choice, time will tell.

The only difference is that if I'm wrong, no harm no foul.. But if your wrong?

 

I don't insist that you hate the biblical God, you've done that yourself by referring to him as a blood thirsty maniac who commits genocide, kills his own son, etc. 

 

I read the book.  This is how the fictional character known as God is described.  I don't hate him.  Or Dracula.  Or Captain Ahab.

 

 

 

But if your wrong?

 

I'm not afraid of God, for the same reason that I'm not afraid of Dracula.  What about you?  Suppose Dracula is real.  Maybe you should invest in garlic.  You know.  Just in case.

 

 

 

 

The only difference is that if I'm wrong, no harm no foul.

 

If you're willing to waste the only life you can be sure of -- then go right ahead.  It's your choice, as you keep insisting.

 

 

 

Look at that.  Despite my best intentions, we're talking again.  Never mind.  As you were.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

Stoics admit they are prone to human error the same as any other person.  You are correct in your observations.   I have a natural tendency to believe the best in people so I often find myself in this argument with Dan believing he is capable of learning.  I admit I am in error and will attempt to steer clear in the future of this circular trap.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

12 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Stoics admit they are prone to human error the same as any other person.  You are correct in your observations.   I have a natural tendency to believe the best in people so I often find myself in this argument with Dan believing he is capable of learning.  I admit I am in error and will attempt to steer clear in the future of this circular trap.

 

 

I've wasted more time arguing with Dan than you have.  It's a seductive trap.  Don't worry about it.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

19 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The only difference is that if I'm wrong, no harm no foul.

 

If you're willing to waste the only life you can be sure of -- then go right ahead.  It's your choice, as you keep insisting.

 

 

How is it wasting ones life to believe in something beyond the here & now? The hope of something better and eternal gives life meaning & purpose, and this soul soothing  peace and well being adds to the quality of life.

 

18 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Stoics admit they are prone to human error the same as any other person.  You are correct in your observations.   I have a natural tendency to believe the best in people so I often find myself in this argument with Dan believing he is capable of learning.  I admit I am in error and will attempt to steer clear in the future of this circular trap.

 

By learning, your really inferring that someone see things in the same light that you see them. Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot? The human error could be yours? I can't learn that your correct because I don't believe what you believe.

 

18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I've wasted more time arguing with Dan than you have.  It's a seductive trap.  Don't worry about it.

 

 

Faith has never been an argument. A person simply states why they believe as they do, its not a seductive trap, its just a reality beyond what you perceive to be real. Accepting that fact might ease your frustration.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

How is it wasting ones life to believe in something beyond the here & now? The hope of something better and eternal gives life meaning & purpose, and this soul soothing  peace and well being adds to the quality of life.

 

 

By learning, your really inferring that someone see things in the same light that you see them. Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot? The human error could be yours? I can't learn that your correct because I don't believe what you believe.

 

 

Faith has never been an argument. A person simply states why they believe as they do, its not a seductive trap, its just a reality beyond what you perceive to be real. Accepting that fact might ease your frustration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

How is it wasting ones life to believe in something beyond the here & now? The hope of something better and eternal gives life meaning & purpose, and this soul soothing  peace and well being adds to the quality of life.

 

 

By learning, your really inferring that someone see things in the same light that you see them. Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot? The human error could be yours? I can't learn that your correct because I don't believe what you believe.

 

 

Faith has never been an argument. A person simply states why they believe as they do, its not a seductive trap, its just a reality beyond what you perceive to be real. Accepting that fact might ease your frustration.

😐

[Pete]

On 8/26/2020 at 6:30 AM, Dan56 said:

 

Its the gospel according to Luke, Mark, Matthew,  & John....... Not Dan.

 

Why would there be any historical records of a peasant from Nazareth? There's no historical records outside of the Koran about Mohammad, or for that matter, not much about William Shakespeare either. There were at list 70 apostles sent out who testified about Christ, all of Rome eventually accepted his story as gospel. I doubt an imaginary figure could have changed the world.

 

But nothing would convince a person who chooses not to believe, they will deny it all happened no matter the documentation. I simply choose to roll with it and accept by faith that its true. Note that there's no evidence of anyone from the time saying it wasn't true, no disciple who walked with Christ said, "I didn't see any miracles". No one said, "He has not risen from his tomb, here's his body over here".  It should be easy to prove an untruth, but no one from that time period did because they couldn't.

Dan you say a lot of bull sometimes. Shakespeare wrote  41 plays, 154 sonnets, and 2 narrative poems. All bear his name. I can also see records from people who saw his plays at the globe theatre including royalty. I can even visit his home where he was born and there has been historic digs at the site of the globe theatre. 

Now then we have no records of anything Jesus wrote. We have three synoptic narratives based mainly on Mark. Who really wrote them is unknown but there is nothing to suggest they witnessed anything. There are no first or second person narration or impressions, which suggests they are just repeating something they were told. There is no proof that any of them met Jesus. Their names and additions have been added later. Then we have a Paulian influenced gospel of John declaring he was God and written much later. Then we have the book of Acts that does not sit well. Most of what is Christianity is Paulian. Paul never met Jesus or had much to do with his disciples. Then there is debate as to how much he wrote. There is no record about Jesus that does not come from the bible and nothing that directly came from him.

My money is on Shakespeare..

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Pete

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, Pete said:

 

Now then we have no records of anything Jesus wrote. We have three synoptic narratives based mainly on Mark. Who really wrote them is unknown but there is nothing to suggest they witnessed anything. There are no first or second person narration or impressions, which suggests they are just repeating something they were told. There is no proof that any of them met Jesus. Their names and additions have been added later. Then we have a Paulian influenced gospel of John declaring he was God and written much later. Then we have the book of Acts that does not sit well. Most of what is Christianity is Paulian. Paul never met Jesus or had much to do with his disciples. Then there is debate as to how much he wrote. There is no record about Jesus that does not come from the bible and nothing that directly came from him.

 

 

And that's why its accepted by faith.. Everyone can read the gospels and decide for themselves whether the story and players are real or just an unknown collaborated hoax. But as I've mentioned before, people lie for a reason, so for what purpose did the new testament authors have to fabricate an imaginary tale of someone who you claim never existed? What was the payoff? Persecution, affliction, and death? It all rings true for me, but everyone makes that decision for themselves.

 

My examples of other historical figures is just to illustrate that anyone's biography can be questioned. When people decide not to believe something, they attack the narrative. When you can't disprove the story, question the source.

 

The traditional view recognizes Mark as a Palestinian Jew who wrote his Gospel using Peter as his source. Matthew & John's gospels aren't narrations per se,  but rather reports and quotes of what they witnessed. And Jesus literally spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus and called him to be an apostle. Paul interacted and had a lot to do with other disciples too. 

 

If Jesus wasn't real, consider the odds of a few uneducated backwoods hicks from Galilee ever being able to pull-off the biggest scam in history? I suspect that the inspiration behind the New Testament came from a source much higher up. 

[Pete]

18 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

And that's why its accepted by faith.. Everyone can read the gospels and decide for themselves whether the story and players are real or just an unknown collaborated hoax. But as I've mentioned before, people lie for a reason, so for what purpose did the new testament authors have to fabricate an imaginary tale of someone who you claim never existed? What was the payoff? Persecution, affliction, and death? It all rings true for me, but everyone makes that decision for themselves.

 

My examples of other historical figures is just to illustrate that anyone's biography can be questioned. When people decide not to believe something, they attack the narrative. When you can't disprove the story, question the source.

 

The traditional view recognizes Mark as a Palestinian Jew who wrote his Gospel using Peter as his source. Matthew & John's gospels aren't narrations per se,  but rather reports and quotes of what they witnessed. And Jesus literally spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus and called him to be an apostle. Paul interacted and had a lot to do with other disciples too. 

 

If Jesus wasn't real, consider the odds of a few uneducated backwoods hicks from Galilee ever being able to pull-off the biggest scam in history? I suspect that the inspiration behind the New Testament came from a source much higher up. 

there is no evidence that they witnessed anything. Yeah! I have heard the suggested connection between Mark and Peter but here again that is just surmised but it can not be a presumed because there is no established or recorded connection. I have heard Mark was a roman scribe of Peter's but again there is no proof of any of it. I dont call it a hoax because people actually believed the event. Bronze age man was capable of believing lots of myths. You only have to look at the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and Babylonian gods to understand that. As for the Paul story on the road to Damascus, the story in Acts written much later, does not seem to make up its mind what happened and Paul never quoted it in anything he wrote.

Religions and gods were ten a penny back then and I believe without Constantine's endorsement I doubt the Jesus story would of made it into the present day. So hoax no. Ignorance, superstition, and wanting to believe it I believe helped spread it. All I can say if the bible is some almighty gods way to save the world it is a very poor effort. But hey if you want to believe nonsense then that is up to you.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

20 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

And that's why its accepted by faith.. Everyone can read the gospels and decide for themselves whether the story and players are real or just an unknown collaborated hoax. But as I've mentioned before, people lie for a reason, so for what purpose did the new testament authors have to fabricate an imaginary tale of someone who you claim never existed? What was the payoff? Persecution, affliction, and death? It all rings true for me, but everyone makes that decision for themselves.

 

My examples of other historical figures is just to illustrate that anyone's biography can be questioned. When people decide not to believe something, they attack the narrative. When you can't disprove the story, question the source.

 

The traditional view recognizes Mark as a Palestinian Jew who wrote his Gospel using Peter as his source. Matthew & John's gospels aren't narrations per se,  but rather reports and quotes of what they witnessed. And Jesus literally spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus and called him to be an apostle. Paul interacted and had a lot to do with other disciples too. 

 

If Jesus wasn't real, consider the odds of a few uneducated backwoods hicks from Galilee ever being able to pull-off the biggest scam in history? I suspect that the inspiration behind the New Testament came from a source much higher up.