Convince me that God exists

[altlover85]

What about proof of Jesus existing? From what I had heard, some theologians dispute that he ever existed.

From what little I remember of church, I don't remember that version of faith ever being talked about.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Romans have been known to record/report everything that happened in those days, so, Jesus did indeed exist; he's a Historical person. His trials and his Crucifixion are not just in the bible, they are in written Pagan Roman Court records, etc. just like we do today in our court systems.

That's 'way overstated, Mikey. There's record that a "Crestus" was executed under the authority of procurator Pilate, and nothing more I've ever encountered. Historians refer to him, but there just aren't any government records as we would think of them -- not even an indication of what, if any, trial this "Crestus" got.

 

[Kulindahr]

They are? I would dearly love to see some actually proof of that assertion.

Meanwhile ... 'There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus that comes from the time of Jesus—no writings or artifacts of his, no accounts of him written in his lifetime ...' A Wikipedia article on the Historicity of Jesus.

That Wiki assertion is deceptive: writing anything major about someone during his lifetime is a recent phenomenon, basically the result of technology that permits printing of just about anything any minority willing to buy will spend money on.

If writing or artifacts from the person's lifetime are required for historicity, then we have to doubt the existence of almost every significant person in Roman and Greek history both -- just for starters.

 

[Kulindahr]

How about the shroud of Turin, ie; his burial cloth, Veronica's Vail?

I think you're not up to speed on this one: while there are a few who still hold on to the position the Shroud may be authentic, the present evidence seems to point the other direction.

 

[Kulindahr]

My meaning is that in modern vernacular "faith" is thought of as the belief in the absence of evidence. In the original text our word "faith" today wouldn't be a perfect translation. It certainly could encompass belief despite evidence but the idea is that what is known, what evidence one has already of someone's person is enough to carry them through to trust and have confidence in that person in things one might not see.
Alexander the Great led his army to many victories. It was "faith" in him that would give his men the confidence that he could lead them into another, despite having actually done so as yet. Their previous knowledge, evidence of him was enough to trust him.
Applied to God, we're not discussing evidence or no evidence. We're discussing whether there is enough evidence to induce in us that trust, confidence, "faith."
And what the word used to mean is incredibly important because if you stray from the meaning too far then the context itself starts to decay vis-a-vis what we have today.

I like the example. Do you know of any place where the word is used that way WRT Alexander? I've read some on him, in the original, and there's a passage about an interaction between him and some of his father's officers, but without the text handy I don't want to jump in and say one way or the other, but anyway the context is that his father's officers followed commands he gave in a certain battle because though they knew his father had ordered otherwise, they trusted Alexander. If the word there is indeed 'pistis/pisteuw', it would be a rich addition to the understanding of the word.


At any rate I think you've made a point valuable to this discussion: there are two ways of approaching the question of "belief", one a mere intellectual affirmation of the reality of Deity, the other a step of trust. From observation, I have to say that these are not necessarily linked.

 

[altlover85]

M
And what the word used to mean is incredibly important because if you stray from the meaning too far then the context itself starts to decay vis-a-vis what we have today.

But why would it be assumed in a debate on an internet forum that people would be using the old version of the world? Also how would I know which version you were using if there were two versions and one was mainstream and the other was less well known outside of you telling me so?

I understand that people do use the word like that (in the old way) even now, but many people do not especially in religious debates on secular forums.

 

[bankside]

That Wiki assertion is deceptive: writing anything major about someone during his lifetime is a recent phenomenon, basically the result of technology that permits printing of just about anything any minority willing to buy will spend money on.

If writing or artifacts from the person's lifetime are required for historicity, then we have to doubt the existence of almost every significant person in Roman and Greek history both -- just for starters.

The writings about pharaohs, and even their minor court officials, merchants etc, undermines all of the assertions in your post.

History isn't a recent phenomenon, even for many obscure figures.

 

[altlover85]

I once said that many scientific theories are based on faith in a sense and was soundly vilified. Why? Because the opposition thought faith meant believing something despite there being no logical reason to. While that can indeed be a form of faith (proper sense) it's not the original idea. Rather, as already explained, confidence or trust in someone (though I suppose it could be something). So I might very well accept a noted scientist's given theory based on many other things he's demonstrated a knowledge and comprehension of. His arguments are sound, his evidence clearly following his premises, and enough of them panning out would allow me to put "faith" in him in regard to his theories. So one might accept what they've not seen from someone as trustful based on the things they've come to know of them via facts and evidences.

You're right, people don't always use words or even the ideas behind them correctly. Perhaps (given the scope of this particular debate) that is why so many today have gotten away from what the scriptures really teach. Think of this, if the word "faith" has been shifted in such a way what other things might be misunderstood by those who read it?

But there aren't a lot of evidences for certain things in the Bible. For example, the predictions of the future or the miracles Jesus did or the fact that he resurrected. So even if you were to use faith to mean something proved through evidences, that doesn't mean that it would be valid to those outside of the religious sphere.

And if meanings have changed than how anyone, but those who have studied the original languages really know the true meanings of the text?

As for what you said MikeyLove, if a lot of people didn't know the meaning then how could they choose to not use it?

Also this whole born into it idea of faith seems to me very random. You could have just as easily been born into a Jewish family. Then you might be espousing Judaism instead of Christianity. Have you ever thought about that before?

 

[altlover85]

Thanks jubhug for making things clearer.

My meaning question was meant to talk about the idea of really understanding the bible if translations and meanings can change over time. Does that mean every time period will have a different bible? How do you say which meaning has the most authority? Perhaps we are drifting into hermeneutics now.

 

[Kulindahr]

But why would it be assumed in a debate on an internet forum that people would be using the old version of the world? Also how would I know which version you were using if there were two versions and one was mainstream and the other was less well known outside of you telling me so?

I understand that people do use the word like that (in the old way) even now, but many people do not especially in religious debates on secular forums.

i don't know that would be the assumption, but it ought to be expected that different communities of people will use words in different ways, and when a particular word is of significance to a particular community, it makes sense to check on what it means.

When people debate something using their own definition and assuming that is the meaning for what they're debating is dangerous.

The writings about pharaohs, and even their minor court officials, merchants etc, undermines all of the assertions in your post.

History isn't a recent phenomenon, even for many obscure figures.

When notoriety is assumed to be an essential for eternality, you do get records. But for most of human history, very little was written down. So the point stands: if artifacts from and writings about someone in his lifetime are necessary to be considered historical, then not very many of the people we regularly treat as real and certain, aren't.

 

[Kulindahr]

That was His native language. But the common language of the day was Greek. He would likely have spoken both. Do we know for sure? No. All we know is that the Apostle's writings we have were originally in Greek and that Greek was the "English" of their time.

Anyone who got called "Rabbi" would probably speak at least some Greek. How much? Unknown. How well? Unknown. But given the cities around where He grew up, it wouldn't be surprising if He spoke at least a basic version.

 

[altlover85]

My Faith is fact based on personal experiences. My own experiences qualifies in believing what the Scriptures, and the Church teaches, especially in the very basic tenets of Christianity which are in the Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasius Creeds.

We're obviously not going to be able to debate because your faith is not sufficient enough (in terms of being able to be counted as evidence in a secular sense) for me to feel that we can have a debate.

I'll agree to disagree with you.

Kulindahr, why would I ask you about a definition I don't even know of? What I mean is I didn't even know there were two definitions, but what would lead me to believe that there were two definitions. I'm not a Catholic and I'm not a biblical scholar. If you are going to use a definition that is different than what secular people use, I would think the burden lies on you to differentiate things and not me.

You've been very good at answering questions and I try to ask questions when I don't know something. But if I don't know I don't know it then I can't ask it. Does that make sense?

 

[radcliffe]

la fe es un tipo de conocimiento que reside en la confianza en la persona que da un testimonio y que no radica en la percepción sensorial de un ser espiritual llamado Dios..

If you are a phylosopher... forget about any perception through our senses... God is a spiritual being like angels, the devil, etc...
faith is way of knowledge...

 

[Kulindahr]

My Faith is fact based on personal experiences. My own experiences qualifies in believing what the Scriptures, and the Church teaches, especially in the very basic tenets of Christianity which are in the Apostles, Nicene, and the Athanasius Creeds.

In the context of this thread, I would find a faith based solely or even primarily on personal experiences to be frightfully rickety. Given the nebulosity of experience and the extreme uncertainty of qualifying or quantifying those experiences with respect to one another. Using experience as a measure, I'd most likely be an erotic druid, since my strongest feelings of the 'numinous' have come from nature and many of my most extreme experiences of rapture have been sexual. Probably I'd talk to the moon when I had troubles, because the moon is a good listener and hangs there and glows with a peaceful light, too.

But with the first post, I maintain that nothing is worthy of worship that is just another part of Creation; worship belongs only to that which is not only Other but Above. And it makes sense to me that the only way I'm going to encounter that is if the Other/Above pokes His/Its/Her/?? metaphoric nose in to make contact.

If I only found beauty and elegance in the Scriptures and Creeds hold forth, I'd have no more cause to believe them than to base my position in the universe on the behavior of the sun.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, why would I ask you about a definition I don't even know of? What I mean is I didn't even know there were two definitions, but what would lead me to believe that there were two definitions. I'm not a Catholic and I'm not a biblical scholar. If you are going to use a definition that is different than what secular people use, I would think the burden lies on you to differentiate things and not me.

You've been very good at answering questions and I try to ask questions when I don't know something. But if I don't know I don't know it then I can't ask it. Does that make sense?

Maybe I said that badly. Part of what I was trying to say is that any time there's some sort of community with cause to use words in a special way, it makes sense to ask if the meaning is the same. That's something that ought to be taught in school, because these days it's really a common problem. As examples, depending on who I'm talking with and in what context, here are some words I have to remember don't necessarily mean what common usage has: adapt, tight, cycles, flux, open, cute, mood, and from CE & P here, right (in fact a couple of those have more than two meanings, depending).

I remember in college how some of us would take some word with two different meanings and try to define it in a way that covered all its meanings. One that went on for hours, and kept us awake on a road trip, was "ship"... and that's not one anyone would expect to be difficult!


Yes, it makes perfect sense to ask. That's one reason I couldn't get certified as a public school teacher; I never could dismiss a question. As an example, as a student teacher I had a section on slope (there's another one of those words....) in algebra. The book and schedule allowed two lessons, and basically to hell with anyone who didn't get it that fast. I spent five lessons, with things such as going to the gym with its roll-out bleachers and to the river bank with varying angles of repose of different materials -- but when I was done, nine of ten students in the class of 30 nuked that topic on the test: they got it, while in the classroom next door, where the regular teacher did the scheduled two lessons, half the students flunked the slope section, and only a fifth ranked B or better.

So ask away, and as I told my students back then, if my answer doesn't makes sense to you, say so! (Which is a good rule for teachers, not just for the sake of that one student, but because if one student asks, probably five more are sitting there wondering as well, and more than likely a third of the class will understand better by hearing a new anmd different explanation>)

 

[wenchine-mahtapasikan]

Maybe I said that badly. Part of what I was trying to say is that any time there's some sort of community with cause to use words in a special way, it makes sense to ask if the meaning is the same. That's something that ought to be taught in school, because these days it's really a common problem. As examples, depending on who I'm talking with and in what context, here are some words I have to remember don't necessarily mean what common usage has: adapt, tight, cycles, flux, open, cute, mood, and from CE & P here, right (in fact a couple of those have more than two meanings, depending).

I remember in college how some of us would take some word with two different meanings and try to define it in a way that covered all its meanings. One that went on for hours, and kept us awake on a road trip, was "ship"... and that's not one anyone would expect to be difficult!


Yes, it makes perfect sense to ask. That's one reason I couldn't get certified as a public school teacher; I never could dismiss a question. As an example, as a student teacher I had a section on slope (there's another one of those words....) in algebra. The book and schedule allowed two lessons, and basically to hell with anyone who didn't get it that fast. I spent five lessons, with things such as going to the gym with its roll-out bleachers and to the river bank with varying angles of repose of different materials -- but when I was done, nine of ten students in the class of 30 nuked that topic on the test: they got it, while in the classroom next door, where the regular teacher did the scheduled two lessons, half the students flunked the slope section, and only a fifth ranked B or better.

So ask away, and as I told my students back then, if my answer doesn't makes sense to you, say so! (Which is a good rule for teachers, not just for the sake of that one student, but because if one student asks, probably five more are sitting there wondering as well, and more than likely a third of the class will understand better by hearing a new anmd different explanation>)

Loved this. Passages like these remind me why I haven't deleted my account.

 

[altlover85]

Kulindahr, thanks for the response! If I have a question, I'll ask it and if it seems like you are using a different definition, let me know.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, thanks for the response! If I have a question, I'll ask it and if it seems like you are using a different definition, let me know.

I was thinking about that today, and realized just how easy it is to go on for like ever thinking you're talking about the same thing as the other person when you aren't at all. It was prompted by my being up working on a roof, and the word "pitch" came up -- whereupon three different meanings for that particular vocable/phoneme in the English language popped into my head, one of which could be easily sorted out but the other two could be confused, leading to serious confusion, for quite a while (consider this statement in that context: "The sand from the beach is staying on the roof because of the pitch"), and one of those had its own division of possibilities.

When I stopped to specify which usage I meant, it struck me that the way to go, in discussion such as these, is to ask up front, when faced with someone part of a community which might use some word in a way other than the popular meaning. Of course then you're left with the possibility that the person is, but doesn't realize it.....

 

[maxracer]

The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Why anyone would choose to worship such a thing is bewildering to me.

 

[conrad]

How a thread gets re=directed always fascinates me. But, the OP seemed to challenge us all to at least try to convince him that God exists. Maybe, we have not heard much more from him because he has come to the realizationi that the assgnment is in many ways pretty silly--my belief in God is not based on someone's having convinced me that God exists.

I freely confess that all my life I have been in the process of being convinced by both the testimony and the lives of those whose testimony I trust.

That I am more attracted to their vision of the universe of meaning which is ours than the boldly stated unbelief of those who have been convinced that there is no God cannot be discounted as a factor in my cheerful belief. I know that it in no way proves anything really.

You all lose me when you resort to semantic interplay. Often I am very confused by the words persons whom I know to be believing Christians use in the testimony to their belief. We all need to stay in touch with others


Then I become aware that many of you would be wanting explanations for the way in which I and my friends express our belief. I am always happy to give a good acount of the faith that is in me and I hope tht at the end of our conversation you and I will both be more enlightened.