Convince me that God exists

[altlover85]

Yes, I see: you are an atheist where the 'Gods' of other religions are concerned. So why be surprised when others are atheistic towards your own particualar version of 'God'?

There's great logic in this.

Give us an example of previous religions having their own 'divine' mythological explanations. In Judeo/Christianity, nothing is mythological, these matters are not comprehensible among people of unbelief, or of Paganism. In order to be able to comprehend these things, True Judeo/Christian Faith is needed.

I don't see how faith can enter a discussion based on logic.

Consider this, if Christ is the only way, then what happens to people who were born before Christ was born?

These documents/reports are not Mythological, they are in fact Historical, as they did happen back then. The reports are reliable.

Here's Something to Chew on: Are there reports/documents that proves Our existence on this earth through out history? if so, then they too are mythological, and yet, we do exist.

I haven't studied the Bible enough to know if it's true or not. From what little I've read, I've heard that most of it isn't true.

Greek Myths are exactly what they are, Myths. BTW, who in History did Judeo/Christianity spring from, and Why.

There is evidence that Jesus shares much with Zoroaster and Krishna. You can google similarities between Christianity and Hinduism and Christianity and Zoroastrianism.

 

[Jacquemar]

^^ Actually, Jesus shares more in common with Mythra, the savior figure of Zoroastrianism, than he does with Zarathustra himself.

 

[altlover85]

^^ Actually, Jesus shares more in common with Mythra, the savior figure of Zoroastrianism, than he does with Zarathustra himself.

Thanks for correcting me on that. I thought they were Mythra and Zarathustra were the same. My knowledge of Zoroastrainsim only really extends as far as knowing that it did influence Christianity.

 

[Jacquemar]

Thanks for correcting me on that. I thought they were Mythra and Zarathustra were the same. My knowledge of Zoroastrainsim only really extends as far as knowing that it did influence Christianity.

Yes, Zoroastrianism did influence Christianity as did many religions and religious figures that came before it. At times Christianity (and even the story of Jesus itself) appears to be a patchwork quilt of stories and beliefs that pre-existed it.

 

[Jacquemar]

^^ I've just been reading some of the other responses posted by other skeptical folks in this thread and I have to say, bravo!

It's amazing how some people think without logic and reason and just with their visceral emotions.

 

[Kulindahr]

All these reports. I hope Mikey will understand the importance of not dismissing contradictory reports...like say the reports of buddhists, zoroastrians, pagan animists, roman pantheonists, atheists, and even latter-day saintists. As they say, the plural of "anecdote" is not "fact."

God thinks, therefore I am! Why not Zeus or Shiva, or (and again not mockingly to go along with the teapot.) the Great Green Arkleseizure?

In general, and especially by the terms of this thread, Mikey is covered by reason: most religions with a multiplicity of deities is not a serious claimant, because the deities are just another part of creation, albeit with some substantial power in/over it. Reports from them aren't even in contention.

Zeus is out of the running; he's a secondary god, actual offspring with no prior existence. Shiva is, too, though that one's more complex (for example it's arguable whether Shiva is, properly speaking, even a person).

Kulindahr, you are moved by the number of people who have believed profoundly and to the last that your shared beliefs were justified, reasonable and correct. You've said it explicitly and implicitly. There is a certain hesitation to turn away from not just one's own beliefs, but the beliefs of centuries of writers gone before. And yet, the reports of billions of keenly-felt believers in contradictory ideas are dismissed out of hand as untenable, misguided, short-sighted, or worse, twisted out of all their original plain-written meaning to allow them to be entered into the column of "supporting evidence."

I suppose I'm just making the old argument of Stephen Roberts: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."

? ? ?
Who dismissed anything out of hand???

 

[Kulindahr]

No, they're not historical. They're mythological. There's about as much evidence to support the historicity of the Greek myths as there is to support the historicity of the Bible, i.e. almost nil.

LOL

There's a smattering of stuff that suggests the background to some of the Greek stuff is sound. Arachaeological evidence for the background in the Old Testament abounds, and continues to accumulate.

Point to the O.T.


Oh, BTW: being myth, in terms of literature, does not preclude historicity.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's amazing how some people think without logic and reason and just with their visceral emotions.

Like the guy in the volcano vid.

 

[FirmaFan]

Like the guy in the volcano vid.

So, if just visceral emotion leads one to think that the passage he read was describing a volcano, what would logic and reason point to?

 

[Kulindahr]

So, if just visceral emotion leads one to think that the passage he read was describing a volcano, what would logic and reason point to?

That it wasn't possibly describing a volcano.

 

[FirmaFan]

That it wasn't possibly describing a volcano.

Didn't ask what logic and reason says it WASN'T describing, if just raw emotion leads one to think that what he read is a volcano, what does logic and reason point to?

 

[bankside]

In general, and especially by the terms of this thread, Mikey is covered by reason: most religions with a multiplicity of deities is not a serious claimant, because the deities are just another part of creation, albeit with some substantial power in/over it. Reports from them aren't even in contention.

Zeus is out of the running; he's a secondary god, actual offspring with no prior existence. Shiva is, too, though that one's more complex (for example it's arguable whether Shiva is, properly speaking, even a person).



? ? ?
Who dismissed anything out of hand???

It is interesting to me that you count non-creation as one of your core criteria for a plausible deity. It suits me fine, by the way: suppose not all things that are, are in need of a creator.

It seems reasonable to me, but I couldn't dismiss someone else's ontology on that basis alone. So what if Zeus had a dad! Jesus had two, if you believe Mary's story.

But if non-creation is the basis for divine reality, I have to say it seems more fitting to conclude that non-creation is the basis for all reality.

I think failing to address that counts as dismissing other religions out of hand.

I trust that you have [STRIKE]wasted[/STRIKE] spent a lifetime studying the Vedic™ texts (in the original language of ancient Sanskrit, of course) ... before commenting on any aspect of Hindusim?

Or is that sort of life-time's-worth of in-depth original-language study only needed before one is able to comment upon Christianity?

I just have to quote this one for its brevity and accuracy. I think sometimes a lifetime of study yields diminishing returns.

 

[Kulindahr]

It seems reasonable to me, but I couldn't dismiss someone else's ontology on that basis alone. So what if Zeus had a dad! Jesus had two, if you believe Mary's story.

You're misconstruing the point, which is that Zeus came into being from existing being.

But if non-creation is the basis for divine reality, I have to say it seems more fitting to conclude that non-creation is the basis for all reality.

I think failing to address that counts as dismissing other religions out of hand.

That's rather like saying you think not looking at an Abrams tank when you're examining vehicles for a trip on the interstate from, say, LA to Toronto, is dismissing other vehicles out of hand. When the question is what you want to drive, you don't look into vehicles that won't even be possible for the trip.

 

[bankside]

You're misconstruing the point, which is that Zeus came into being from existing being.

My point was that you're missing the point, which is that Zeus came into being from existing being. I'm not sure how that disqualifies him.

Ex nihilo, ex deus, potato, potahto. "From whatever came continuously before that."

As far as Abrams tanks, the traditional American vehicle for paying a visit to Toronto was a corvette at the head of a fleet. Use a tank if you prefer however. Either way it works out the same.

So, I'm having a bit of fun with your analogy because I don't know quite what else to do with it. It seems lost on you that the narrative of the bible is, at face value, highly improbable. You present it as self-evidently factual it in the mundane, obvious way that one would read a chinese restaurant menu or the instructions for putting new cord in the weed whacker. Perhaps it does seem that way to you, though I must admit I'm skeptical that it would require years of study for something true to become that obvious. Not resolutely skeptical, I suppose, but prudently so.

And when other religious myths are offered as a basis of comparison (a comparison which might serve to bolster, not just discredit, what seems obvious to you) you dismiss them out of hand, or after such a fleeting analysis that your hand was barely grazed by the idea, so to speak.

Why is Christianity so different than the discredited religious theories that preceded or followed it? Recognizing the extraordinary reach of its claims, show some respect for skepticism, skeptic as you say you are, and show how it differs from other extraordinary improbable-sounding claims.

And actually, a tank has its uses for driving to Toronto. If a soldier recommended it, I'd give it greater consideration than what sounds to me very much like a used car sales pitch extolling nothing but the virtues of the Pinto. It would probably take a soldier who has driven both, to get me into a Ford.

Here are some other good vehicles: materially and metaphorically:
http://www.driversdrive.com/unusualvehicles/

 

[altlover85]

I trust that you have [STRIKE]wasted[/STRIKE] spent a lifetime studying the Vedic™ texts (in the original language of ancient Sanskrit, of course) ... before commenting on any aspect of Hindusim?

Or is that sort of life-time's-worth of in-depth original-language study only needed before one is able to comment upon Christianity?

When did anyone say they needed in-depth study in order to be able to comment on something. Of course study helps you better understand things, but it's not always necessary to talk about subjects.

Concerning the bolded text; Not necessarily, One only has to ask God for the gift of Faith, and understanding, and then after that you do recieve the gift, then it is entirely your choice if yo want to be part of Judeo/Christianity.

I will not answer the second paragraph, as I Believe in only 1 God, not many gods. All those other gods are either earth born, or those in all of God's Creation are made as gods by the people, and yet, they do nothing, hear nothing, see nothing, nor smell anything. do a good read on Moses and the Pharoah, when he was asking for the Israelites to be set free, etc. What are the key exchanges between Moses and the Pharoah? These events are recorded/reported in Pagan Documents of that time, not just in the Bible. I guess I did answer that paragraph.

Faith could function as a placebo effect though. You might just think Faith is helping you when it's really something else, like the feeling of you thinking that Faith is helpful.

Again I ask you what happens to people that were born and died before Jesus that believed in other deities?

I would be willing to bet in another 2,000 years there will be another great religion (or perhaps science will take over where religion left off) that will take over Christianity's current place as has happened to many religions n the past. Will those people be deluded?

 

[zoltanspawn]

Zeus is out of the running; he's a secondary god, actual offspring with no prior existence. Shiva is, too, though that one's more complex (for example it's arguable whether Shiva is, properly speaking, even a person).

Without doubt, anyone with a basic knowledge of Hinduism would recognize that Shiva is worshipped as a divine person. He is often regarded as being simultaneously an explicitly detailed human character -and- the primordial, uncreated ground of the universe.

 

[altlover85]

Faith is not a feeling/placeboeffect to be had, nor anything that can be just tossed about at one's whim, But, it can be lost. No one can 'feel' faith. Faith is far more than just being helpful; it Guides you with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and still, its alot more than that too. It's a Mystery in and of itself.

What happened to them when Jesus, after being buried in the Tomb, descended to the dead, and revealed himself to them, and if they all believed him then, he opened the gates of Paradise to them, and Adam and Eve were amongst them too, including those who perished in the Great flood of Noah's time. All who have died up to, and just before Jesus' Crucifixion; Christ witnessed to them in the netherworld, the place of the dead.

There will be no more "Great" Religions after Christianity. Christianity, especially Catholicism, will never perish or disappear before the appointed time of the 'End' of the World, of which no one knows the day or the time of its coming, except the father in Heaven.

You can't bring faith into an argument that is based in fact. It's outside of the realm of the natural world.

You have no proof of what happened to the dead before Christianity, except what's in the Bible which has been altered through the years.

Last time I checked Islam was pretty up there in the religions of the world. Many people before you thought there wouldn't be another religion after their own. Ask the Jews.

 

[altlover85]

So basically you are admitting you have no proof other than a biased source. So there really is no point in debating this with you.

 

[bankside]

Mikey, you say what catholics believe again and again, but you don't say why those things are likely to be true.

 

[Jacquemar]

Some of the things said in this thread are so far fetched that it doesn't surprise me that learned people stay away from religion.