Jesus' Origin Story

[Blackleaf]

The atheist regulars don't believe in personal testimony that they can cross-examine, don't believe in ancient testimony either that they can't cross-examine.  New or old subjectivity doesn't meet their epistemological concerns.  One thing that make me a theist, is my open epistemology.  Carefully reproducible experimental quantitative evidence, or perception derived from that, is the narrowest rational epistemology.  Controlled observation or controlled experiment.  So we know in that way, that there is a phenomena (not a neumena) out there, that we call an electron, and we know its mass and other physical properties, because specialists can repeatedly measure them in a controlled way.  The existence of the electron was a surprise however, in the Victorian universe, charge was thought to be a continuum.

So within that general epistemology, personal testimony isn't worth much, and that is what you and I have, and frankly what I find interesting.  For them it isn't even interesting.  Naturalism vs humanism.

Personal testimony has been proven to be unreliable. When asked to recall simple details like the race of a person who robbed them at gun point, people will very often get it wrong. There were times another customer in the store was identified as the one who robbed it, just because the eye witness saw them at around the same time that it happened. So if eye witness testimony is useless as evidence in court, why should I hold eye witness testimony in high regard for intangible things? How do I know that the personal experiences of the person were real, not intentionally fabricated, not the result of a compromised mental state (such as being high on drugs), or the result of remembering things incorrectly?

If a god existed, it would be very simple to prove that it exists. You can't hide something that has infinite power and omniscience. It wouldn't be up to personal experiences, which often conflict with each other, to determine the god's existence and nature.

[popsthebuilder]

Personal testimony has been proven to be unreliable. When asked to recall simple details like the race of a person who robbed them at gun point, people will very often get it wrong. There were times another customer in the store was identified as the one who robbed it, just because the eye witness saw them at around the same time that it happened. So if eye witness testimony is useless as evidence in court, why should I hold eye witness testimony in high regard for intangible things? How do I know that the personal experiences of the person were real, not intentionally fabricated, not the result of a compromised mental state (such as being high on drugs), or the result of remembering things incorrectly?

If a god existed, it would be very simple to prove that it exists. You can't hide something that has infinite power and omniscience. It wouldn't be up to personal experiences, which often conflict with each other, to determine the god's existence and nature.

In your premise you limit the capacities of what is technically without limit.

Omniscience and omnipresence and omniscience.

It has the power and knowledge to be everywhere yet undetectable by exponentially lesser things or their relatively primitive tools and means.

[SGOS]

What. I have backing from before written word that spans all the earth and time. You think faith in a higher power is some new thing? People may not have been as technologically advanced way back when, but they knew the obvious; that being that did not create themselves or the majesty of their habitat. We can call it nature if it makes you feel better. It's all the same. There is a source and it does care about what IT formed.

There is no real evidence for true randomness or coincidences/chance. Why believe in them and life from non life, but not a creative giving force?

Probably slightly off topic

Good Grief!  That was a veritable slaughter house for logic.  It must be like having an eternal carnival of tilt-o-whirls and bumper cars in your brain.

[Mike Cl]

There is no real evidence for true randomness or coincidences/chance. Why believe in them and life from non life, but not a creative giving force?

Probably slightly off topic

Why not believe in a creative giving force?  Because it is a fiction everywhere and everywhen.  Except in your head.  Is there even a single other person who believes as you do?  No.  That, alone, should tell you that you may be living in your own created fiction.  You want to believe so deeply, so badly, that you will accept a fiction before any sort of reality.  The only proof you have offered is from between your ears--it is known only to you and your experience is totally within you.  Whatever change occurred in your life happened when you decided to do.  Yet you say god did it and offer that up as some sort of proof to the world that you indeed, have a pipeline to god.  You are simply another self deluded theist.

[Mike Cl]

So within that general epistemology, personal testimony isn't worth much, and that is what you and I have, and frankly what I find interesting.  For them it isn't even interesting.  Naturalism vs humanism.

Personal testimony is very powerful--for the person who experienced it.  But it is not proof of anything beyond the individual that experienced it.  It is interesting when presented as just what it is.  But when presented as proof that god exists, it is rather droll, boring and yes, uninteresting. 

As for your naturalism vs humanism, it all depends upon how you define each term. 

[widdershins]

What. I have backing from before written word that spans all the earth and time. You think faith in a higher power is some new thing? People may not have been as technologically advanced way back when, but they knew the obvious; that being that did not create themselves or the majesty of their habitat. We can call it nature if it makes you feel better. It's all the same. There is a source and it does care about what IT formed.

There is no real evidence for true randomness or coincidences/chance. Why believe in them and life from non life, but not a creative giving force?

Probably slightly off topic

They knew the obvious all right.  Like lightning bolts don't just throw themselves.  Zeus did it.  And the Earth was flat.  That was pretty "obvious" to primitives.  Is the mountain spewing smoke and fire?  Mountains don't just spew smoke and fire on their own.  God was obviously angry.  Or helping them by guiding them with a "pillar of smoke" by day and a "pillar of fire" by night.  Obviously that's a big neon "This way" sign.

Throughout history many things have been "obvious" to people who were very much wrong.  It still happens today.

That last sentence, man that was a fresh load of BS because it really stunk up the place.  No real evidence for randomness or coincidence?  By that I assume you mean, "You can't PROVE it wasn't magic!"  There is PLENTY of evidence for true randomness and coincidence.  That you choose to believe it was magic instead doesn't change that.

[Baruch]

Personal testimony has been proven to be unreliable. When asked to recall simple details like the race of a person who robbed them at gun point, people will very often get it wrong. There were times another customer in the store was identified as the one who robbed it, just because the eye witness saw them at around the same time that it happened. So if eye witness testimony is useless as evidence in court, why should I hold eye witness testimony in high regard for intangible things? How do I know that the personal experiences of the person were real, not intentionally fabricated, not the result of a compromised mental state (such as being high on drugs), or the result of remembering things incorrectly?

If a god existed, it would be very simple to prove that it exists. You can't hide something that has infinite power and omniscience. It wouldn't be up to personal experiences, which often conflict with each other, to determine the god's existence and nature.

You are assuming, as a Greek, that G-d is omniscient, that existence applies to G-d, that G-d is omnipresent etc .. so yes, that particular straw man doesn't fly ;-)  Except in a very strong wind!

All men are mermaids
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is a mermaid ...

See, logic/rationality doesn't get you jack shit either.  Yes, people are unreliable, atheists/theists all are.  Rational people, aren't ... they just claim to be, because they are just as full of ape shit as the rest of the monkeys.

So, if your choice of what to eat for lunch is objective, how does that work?  Or is it just some worthless subjective feeling (and feminine, euw).  I can reason that truly autonomous vehicles won't work, and my reasoning may be wrong.  But it isn't a fact that they exist ... but a marketing claim to be debunked ... when people make extraordinary claims ;-)  You debunk the marketing claim that G-d exists ... and I counter ... I have nothing to sell you, so don't engage in implied ad hominem (not by you personally, but a straw man atheist).

So like Descartes ... you are left with the epistemological problem of ... how do I achieve certainty.  Please see Descartes then.  For me, I can move my own right hand ... I am less trusting of what I think ;-)

[Mike Cl]

You are assuming, as a Greek, that G-d is omniscient, that existence applies to G-d, that G-d is omnipresent etc ..

  You debunk the marketing claim that G-d exists ... and I counter ... I have nothing to sell you,

Actually, I am assuming nothing about god--since god is a fiction, god is all things to each and every believer.  I assume nothing about Bugs Bunny or Paul Bunyan or god.  All fictions.  So I realize they change with the believer. 

You have nothing to sell?  Knowing you, I'll take your word.  But Pops, for example, has a bunch to sell.  He has to sell his point to me, so that he can reinforce it for himself.  That is indeed, selling.

[Baruch]

Actually, I am assuming nothing about god--since god is a fiction, god is all things to each and every believer.  I assume nothing about Bugs Bunny or Paul Bunyan or god.  All fictions.  So I realize they change with the believer. 

You have nothing to sell?  Knowing you, I'll take your word.  But Pops, for example, has a bunch to sell.  He has to sell his point to me, so that he can reinforce it for himself.  That is indeed, selling.

You use a straw man god of your own construction, in talking with theists or trolls.  I guess those aren't assumptions, just a stick in the eye.

[Mike Cl]

You use a straw man god of your own construction, in talking with theists or trolls.  I guess those aren't assumptions, just a stick in the eye.

How am I using a straw man god?  I don't believe in them either.  The set position of the universe is that no god exists.  It would be like me telling somebody I believe in the wondrous powers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.  When I'm told there is not such thing, I then maintain that there is, and the proof is all around you--just look.  In fact, I say, prove that She does not exist!  That's how I regard god(s).  God does not exist and without proof that god does exist, why even consider it  or talk about it.

[Baruch]

How am I using a straw man god?  I don't believe in them either.  The set position of the universe is that no god exists.  It would be like me telling somebody I believe in the wondrous powers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.  When I'm told there is not such thing, I then maintain that there is, and the proof is all around you--just look.  In fact, I say, prove that She does not exist!  That's how I regard god(s).  God does not exist and without proof that god does exist, why even consider it  or talk about it.

Then why quote medieval theology as part of a polemic.  My point isn't that you should be apologetic, but that your expression should be neutral (and I don't mean agnostic).

G-d is omnipresent ... I don't see G-d, therefore no G-d.  That isn't a valid argument .. the first part is a straw man, set up only for the purpose of knocking it down.  It doesn't help your POV, to argue in a way that is invalid or merely rhetorical.  Though it is better than just a drive by ad hominem some use.  Because we know each other a long time, I understand you usually.  But I partly respond for the benefit of those who don't.

[Mike Cl]

Then why quote medieval theology as part of a polemic.  My point isn't that you should be apologetic, but that your expression should be neutral (and I don't mean agnostic).

G-d is omnipresent ... I don't see G-d, therefore no G-d.  That isn't a valid argument .. the first part is a straw man, set up only for the purpose of knocking it down.  It doesn't help your POV, to argue in a way that is invalid or merely rhetorical.  Though it is better than just a drive by ad hominem some use.  Because we know each other a long time, I understand you usually.  But I partly respond for the benefit of those who don't.

Are you conflating me with somebody else?  When have I quoted medieval theology?  How can one be neutral and not agnostic?  I called myself agnostic for most of my life because I said that one cannot prove a negative.  I have shifted my thinking to being not really atheistic since I don't believe in any theism--but I'm not exactly against theism since all theism is based upon fiction.  I call myself a nonbeliever.  I don't believe in any theism nor that there is any sort of foundation for theism. 

I have never said that god is omnipresent--and I have never said I don't 'see' him; I have said I don't see any evidence of the existence of god(s).  I fully realize there is much that exists that I can't see, so to argue that there is no god because I can't see him/she/it/they is foolish. 

My POV is that it is not my duty to prove god does not exist.  That is the same as asking me to prove Bugs Bunny or Santa Claus does not exist. Or being asked to prove there are not creatures from another universe in this universe.  Everything that is, has some sort of proof that it is.  So, the natural state of the universe is it is godless.  So, for me to think there is a god, one needs to provide some sort of tangible, empirical evidence of such.  I am a nonbeliever.  Prove me wrong.

[Baruch]

Personal testimony is very powerful--for the person who experienced it.  But it is not proof of anything beyond the individual that experienced it.  It is interesting when presented as just what it is.  But when presented as proof that god exists, it is rather droll, boring and yes, uninteresting. 

As for your naturalism vs humanism, it all depends upon how you define each term.

Sophists define and redefine as necessary .. but honest people don't.  Some people love nature (minus humans) some love humans (minus nature) ... I love both.  But since I am not a tree, and am kindred to you and the other ape people ... I find ape people more relevant.

As for proof, the denial of evidence, trumps any claims.  Or better yet, just ignore anyone who makes any claims.  I don't need proof to find my way to the lavatory.  I already know where it is.  Again, as in the NT itself, Pharisees demand miracles of Jesus (and I think he had none, if he was a real person) ... in the sense that you and the Pharisees mean it.  You are a secular Pharisee, not that there is anything wrong with that.  Your standard of proof and that of the Pharisees is different.  And of course, we are speaking of a story, not something that actually happened.  But the attitude of the people in the story, and actual people, that is real.

[Baruch]

Personal testimony has been proven to be unreliable. When asked to recall simple details like the race of a person who robbed them at gun point, people will very often get it wrong. There were times another customer in the store was identified as the one who robbed it, just because the eye witness saw them at around the same time that it happened. So if eye witness testimony is useless as evidence in court, why should I hold eye witness testimony in high regard for intangible things? How do I know that the personal experiences of the person were real, not intentionally fabricated, not the result of a compromised mental state (such as being high on drugs), or the result of remembering things incorrectly?

If a god existed, it would be very simple to prove that it exists. You can't hide something that has infinite power and omniscience. It wouldn't be up to personal experiences, which often conflict with each other, to determine the god's existence and nature.

Ah, but you are giving personal testimony about your POV.  That must be unreliable.  So what is your true POV ... and convey it to us without writing it, because then that is personal testimony about personal testimony.  More than Cretans are liars ;-)  And yes, your straw man G-d is unreal, but then you knew that already.

[Baruch]

Why not believe in a creative giving force?  Because it is a fiction everywhere and everywhen.  Except in your head.  Is there even a single other person who believes as you do?  No.  That, alone, should tell you that you may be living in your own created fiction.  You want to believe so deeply, so badly, that you will accept a fiction before any sort of reality.  The only proof you have offered is from between your ears--it is known only to you and your experience is totally within you.  Whatever change occurred in your life happened when you decided to do.  Yet you say god did it and offer that up as some sort of proof to the world that you indeed, have a pipeline to god.  You are simply another self deluded theist.

There are atheist Hindus and Buddhists ... so nothing wrong with an impersonal absolute.  Physicists who are not even religious, believe in impersonal absolutes too ... that is the key that ties that all together.  I simply don't see reality as impersonal ... I am a person myself after all.  It would be like a statue trying to imagine what being a real human is like.  Reductionism, which is the inevitable outcome of fundamentalist epistemology, is necessarily materialist and impersonal ... unless you think that atoms are little people ;-)