Evidence for god or gods?

[tony12356]

Ok, but regarding Jesus the vast majority of historians affirm that He did exist. Even if you went against them, you’d have to have some reason why there was a following of Jesus from the very first century and churches that still exist today were from that time.

It’s important to use the same standards also. As it is said, there is far more evidence that Jesus existed than for Julius Caesar. So, you’d have to start questioning the existence of all sorts of historical figures.

That’s not entirely true. See most scholars do except a person named Jesus existed, but that is even questionable. Some scholars argue that Jesus might have been the result of multiple people being lumped into one story. As far as the evidence that Jesus was the son of God is very little.

The four gospels are all anonymous works, which later on names put on them. The earliest fragments of the new testament is papyrus 52. It dates back to around 125 ce and its from the gospel of John. All other fragments show up later in time. This means that we don’t have any original copies from these sources and we don’t know how accurate the later sources are. Around the second through third century we see other gospels appearing such as the Gnostic gospels, which would be later rejected by the early churches. csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_P52

As far as eyewitness accounts from outside sources, we have none. Many people point to is Tacitus. However, Tacitus was born after the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus. His work was written around 116 CE and he was getting his source from some else. Not only that, but he never said the person was Jesus. All other early writings are similar. None are eyewitness testimonies. Now I’m not saying that Jesus didn’t exist. Its just that we have little evidence to go off of and we have nothing to confirm any of the miracles. I will absolute agree that a man named Jesus most likely existed.

Now as for Caesar we have coins with his name dating back to just a couple of years after he would have supposedly died. We also have letters and documents as well as images of him dating to around a similar time. Yes, I will absolutely agree that many of events that pertain to Caesar are questionable and we shouldn’t assume them to be true.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t know, but evidence that the God of Abram exist and multiple eyewitness accounts from outside sources would be a great start. I think that’s as honest as I can get.

OK, but hold on a second. You said that you were looking for philosophical discussion. Now, you’re claiming that you want empirical evidence (inasmuch as eyewitness evidence is empirical).

I think it’s fair to ask “how reasonable might we expect it to be to find empirical evidence of a particular event, from the distant past, from a society that didn’t really keep records in the way that we do today?” When you look at the limited potential for finding evidence of that sort – whether it concerns God or any other event – the lack of evidence isn’t the 600-lb gorilla in the room that you seem to be making it out to be…!

One other point, that’s hopefully not too much of a tangent: your description says not that you disbelieve in God, so to speak, but that you disbelieve the religious tradition and its teachings on God that you encountered when younger. Is that a fair statement? If so, then I don’t think it’s intellectually honest to say “I don’t believe in this” so much as it is to say “I don’t believe in what this group of people say about this”…

(If you know Reza Aslan’s story, I think you’ll find that’s what his stumbling block is (whether or not he recognizes it): he rejects the evangelical Christianity which he personally encountered. I’m cool with that, as far as it goes – after all, I reject that set of theologies, too. Yet, that doesn’t mean that it proves that God doesn’t exist…)

 

[tony12356]

OK, but hold on a second. You said that you were looking for philosophical discussion. Now, you’re claiming that you want empirical evidence (inasmuch as eyewitness evidence is empirical).

No. see that was a response to someone who asked me what would it take to convince you that Jesus exists.

I will except a philosophical argument for the existence of God. However, the God of the bible and Jesus being the son of God is something that I would need physical evidence for.

One other point, that’s hopefully not too much of a tangent: your description says not that you disbelieve in God, so to speak, but that you disbelieve the religious tradition and its teachings on God that you encountered when younger. Is that a fair statement?

No. If you asked me that a little more then a year ago, I would have said yes. Around a year ago I started questioning the whole thing. I already wrote about this earlier. Now to this day I don’t believe that Jesus was the son of God and don’t believe God exists. However, I questioned if the bible was true to being with and that led me to being an atheist. Again I stated this earlier. Lastly, I still read the bible today for reasons that I stated earlier.

 

[Thom18]

That’s not entirely true. See most scholars do except a person named Jesus existed, but that is even questionable. Some scholars argue that Jesus might have been the result of multiple people being lumped into one story. As far as the evidence that Jesus was the son of God is very little.

The four gospels are all anonymous works, which later on names put on them. The earliest fragments of the new testament is papyrus 52. It dates back to around 125 ce and its from the gospel of John. All other fragments show up later in time. This means that we don’t have any original copies from these sources and we don’t know how accurate the later sources are. Around the second through third century we see other gospels appearing such as the Gnostic gospels, which would be later rejected by the early churches. csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_P52

As far as eyewitness accounts from outside sources, we have none. Many people point to is Tacitus. However, Tacitus was born after the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus. His work was written around 116 CE and he was getting his source from some else. Not only that, but he never said the person was Jesus. All other early writings are similar. None are eyewitness testimonies. Now I’m not saying that Jesus didn’t exist. Its just that we have little evidence to go off of and we have nothing to confirm any of the miracles. I will absolute agree that a man named Jesus most likely existed.

Now as for Caesar we have coins with his name dating back to just a couple of years after he would have supposedly died. We also have letters and documents as well as images of him dating to around a similar time. Yes, I will absolutely agree that many of events that pertain to Caesar are questionable and we shouldn’t assume them to be true.

Every surviving manuscript tells us who that gospel is “according to”. How do you look at all of them and conclude that they’re anonymous?

The Gnostic gospels were rejected, in part, because their authorship couldn’t be proved. That’s not the case with the gospels that did “make the cut”.

Aside from the gospels (which are modeled after Greco-Roman biographies of the day), we have testimony from Josephus. Of course, there’s the question, “were his words edited later?”, but he did make mention of Jesus. He was born before the destruction of the Temple, so we can’t complain that he was “born too late” to be useful. Beyond that still, we have art and holy sites that have survived to this day.

But I thought this was just about philosophy (this beingposted in the philosophy forum and all).

 

[tony12356]

Every surviving manuscript tells us who that gospel is “according to”. How do you look at all of them and conclude that they’re anonymous?

All gospels are done that way. For example the Gospel of Thomas. Which was rejected by the church. Also, as I pointed out we don’t have any of the complete works until at least a century later. So we don’t know wrote them.

The Gnostic gospels were rejected, in part, because their authorship couldn’t be proved. That’s not the case with the gospels that did “make the cut”.

The Gnostic gospels were manly rejected, because it made claims about Jesus that no other gospel made.

Aside from the gospels (which are modeled after Greco-Roman biographies of the day), we have testimony from Josephus. Of course, there’s the question, “were his words edited later?”, but he did make mention of Jesus. He was born before the destruction of the Temple, so we can’t complain that he was “born too late” to be useful. Beyond that still, we have art and holy sites that have survived to this day.

Yes, and they are in question for being forgeries. Also, Josephus never claimed that he was an eyewitness and in many of the things he wrote came from other sources. Which is why at best we can take it with a grain of salt. As far as art work goes we don’t have anything until the 3rd century? Yes, I know holy sites exists, but that isn’t proof that Jesus was the son of God.

But I thought this was just about philosophy (this beingposted in the philosophy forum and all).

Yes, but someone asked me a question and it …

 

[Thom18]

All gospels are done that way. For example the Gospel of Thomas. Which was rejected by the church. Also, as I pointed out we don’t have any of the complete works until at least a century later. So we don’t know wrote them. The Gnostic gospels were manly rejected, because it made claims about Jesus that no other gospel made.

Yes, that, and that their authorship couldn’t be confirmed (Thomas, Mary, Judas, etc.).

Yes, and they are in question for being forgeries. Also, Josephus never claimed that he was an eyewitness and in many of the things he wrote came from other sources. Which is why at best we can take it with a grain of salt. As far as art work goes we don’t have anything until the 3rd century? Yes, I know holy sites exists, but that isn’t proof that Jesus was the son of God.

You were disputing Jesus’ very existence first. I’m not defending His divinity in this, only defending the proof that He existed. You’re moving the goalposts.

No, Josephus wasn’t an eyewitness. Again, not the claim I’m making. His sources would have been eyewitnesses or documents from eyewitnesses. And if you’re going to reject these, you also have to reject similar documentation for the existence of other historical figures. Religious figures don’t get extra scrutiny just because they’re religious figures.

The mention I’m speaking of was likely interpolated by Christians later. That doesn’t mean everything he said concerning Jesus is a forgery, only the parts that a Jew wouldn’t believe (If he could be called a man, etc.). And that’s only one of several beliefs concerning it. Some scholars believe the entire paragraph is legitimate. Some believe it has been interpolated. Others don’t believe a word of it. There isn’t a consensus.

Still, he makes a passing reference to Jesus again in saying that His brother James was condemned to death by stoning.

 

[tony12356]

Yes, that, and that their authorship couldn’t be confirmed (Thomas, Mary, Judas, etc.).

You were disputing Jesus’ very existence first. I’m not defending His divinity in this, only defending the proof that He existed. You’re moving the goalposts.

No, Josephus wasn’t an eyewitness. Again, not the claim I’m making. His sources would have been eyewitnesses or documents from eyewitnesses. And if you’re going to reject these, you also have to reject similar documentation for the existence of other historical figures. Religious figures don’t get extra scrutiny just because they’re religious figures.

The mention I’m speaking of was likely interpolated by Christians later. That doesn’t mean everything he said concerning Jesus is a forgery, only the parts that a Jew wouldn’t believe (If he could be called a man, etc.). And that’s only one of several beliefs concerning it. Some scholars believe the entire paragraph is legitimate. Some believe it has been interpolated. Others don’t believe a word of it. There isn’t a consensus.

Still, he makes a passing reference to Jesus again in saying that His brother James was condemned to death by stoning.

No, I’m not moving the goalpost. If you look at my argument I clearly stated that I wasn’t arguing that Jesus didn’t exists. I even made sure I stated that just to make sure people didn’t get confused.

I agree that the scholars can’t come to a consensus. So if they can’t then we don’t have any reason to assume that its true. The default is to agree that we don’t know and thus can’t use it as evidence.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You were disputing Jesus’ very existence first. I’m not defending His divinity in this, only defending the proof that He existed.

Jesus was a very common name back then, and it is a common name today; especially in the Spanish speaking countries. Obviously there were many people called “Jesus”, and some of them might have been crucified. Unfortunately that barbaric practice was quite prevalent in those times. The question is: “did that particular Jesus actually perform those alleged miracles”? And for that there is no evidence.

 

[reggieM]

OK, but hold on a second. You said that you were looking for philosophical discussion.

My apology to tony and others - I introduced the topic and he just answered.

 

[reggieM]

ave survived to this day.

But I thought this was just about philosophy (this beingposted in the philosophy forum and all).

That was my mistake. I introduced that topic and tony was kind enough to reply.

 

[reggieM]

That’s not entirely true. See most scholars do except a person named Jesus existed, but that is even questionable. Some scholars argue that Jesus might have been the result of multiple people being lumped into one story. As far as the evidence that Jesus was the son of God is very little.

The four gospels are all anonymous works, which later on names put on them. The earliest fragments of the new testament is papyrus 52. It dates back to around 125 ce and its from the gospel of John. All other fragments show up later in time. This means that we don’t have any original copies from these sources and we don’t know how accurate the later sources are. Around the second through third century we see other gospels appearing such as the Gnostic gospels, which would be later rejected by the early churches. csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_P52

As far as eyewitness accounts from outside sources, we have none. Many people point to is Tacitus. However, Tacitus was born after the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus. His work was written around 116 CE and he was getting his source from some else. Not only that, but he never said the person was Jesus. All other early writings are similar. None are eyewitness testimonies. Now I’m not saying that Jesus didn’t exist. Its just that we have little evidence to go off of and we have nothing to confirm any of the miracles. I will absolute agree that a man named Jesus most likely existed.

Now as for Caesar we have coins with his name dating back to just a couple of years after he would have supposedly died. We also have letters and documents as well as images of him dating to around a similar time. Yes, I will absolutely agree that many of events that pertain to Caesar are questionable and we shouldn’t assume them to be true.

Thanks for a detailed reply here, tony.
I see some complaints that I should not have introduced this here, although others have also engaged it. I’m not sure if it’s better in a different forum - although I do find your concerns to be important and need to be addressed.

Just briefly:

I will absolute agree that a man named Jesus most likely existed.

I think it’s essential to establish that as a starting point and move forward, rather than looking for some absolute proof.
Yes, there are coins with Caesar’s image, but there are drawings of Jesus in the early centuries - and have you considered the Shroud of Turin?

 

[mkoopman]

That’s not entirely true. See most scholars do except a person named Jesus existed, but that is even questionable. Some scholars argue that Jesus might have been the result of multiple people being lumped into one story. As far as the evidence that Jesus was the son of God is very little.

The four gospels are all anonymous works, which later on names put on them. The earliest fragments of the new testament is papyrus 52. It dates back to around 125 ce and its from the gospel of John. All other fragments show up later in time. This means that we don’t have any original copies from these sources and we don’t know how accurate the later sources are. Around the second through third century we see other gospels appearing such as the Gnostic gospels, which would be later rejected by the early churches. csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_P52

As far as eyewitness accounts from outside sources, we have none. Many people point to is Tacitus. However, Tacitus was born after the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus. His work was written around 116 CE and he was getting his source from some else. Not only that, but he never said the person was Jesus. All other early writings are similar. None are eyewitness testimonies. Now I’m not saying that Jesus didn’t exist. Its just that we have little evidence to go off of and we have nothing to confirm any of the miracles. I will absolute agree that a man named Jesus most likely existed.

Now as for Caesar we have coins with his name dating back to just a couple of years after he would have supposedly died. We also have letters and documents as well as images of him dating to around a similar time. Yes, I will absolutely agree that many of events that pertain to Caesar are questionable and we shouldn’t assume them to be true.

You appear to research in the wrong Berlin library.

What of the churches and images in the catacombs? Fake news? Is it.

Jesus as a myth is unsupported until many centuries later when scholars became dolts and dupes. Oh wait, when were they not? Let’s ask Socrates.

What of crucifixes and even moreso the shroud? All a hoax. If poor Lazarus rose from the dead to tell our brothers Jesus is risen would they listen then?

 

[MPat]

Yeah, but generally when I talk to anyone about God I’m referring to their deity or a deity, That’s also what I see from other people and what the dictionary states. Generally God is referring to a supreme being or a deity. To me it seems to vague to say God is whatever started the universe. Also that doesn’t always work. For example, some Greek Gods have nothing to do with creating the universe.

That’s why I’m using a definition that allows all Gods to fit under one umbrella. It doesn’t matter if its Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, Yahweh, Asherah, Shango, or FSM they are all Gods under this Umbrella.

OK, let’s take one example of “clear evidence”:

Now as for Caesar we have coins with his name dating back to just a couple of years after he would have supposedly died. We also have letters and documents as well as images of him dating to around a similar time.

For yes, Caesar was a Roman god. For example, there was a temple built to him - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Caesar. And you did offer evidence (presumably, “clear” in your view) that he existed. Thus, we have “clear” evidence of existence of a god. Q.E.D.

If necessary, there is also a great number of Roman emperors, Japanese emperors and Egyptian Pharaohs in reserve.

But, of course, in fact you will not be very satisfied with this answer. It might be true, but it is boring and leads nowhere.

And we are not very interested in your “Umbrella” that mixes God and gods for the same reason.

The difference between them is great: gods are just powerful beings, but God can be expected to be some sort of basis of existence, goodness, truth… Thus creator of the Universe is a pretty good candidate.

I don’t know, but evidence that the God of Abram exist and multiple eyewitness accounts from outside sources would be a great start. I think that’s as honest as I can get.

What do you mean by “outside sources”? Sources that are non-Jewish, non-Christian, non-Muslim, non-Mormon and the like? But that just leaves “sources that do not believe God of Abraham exists”. No, I don’t think you can get sources that do not believe X directly confirming X - for any X. And thus no, I do not think that is a very honest requirement.

In fact, you do not use this requirement when you like the claim: you did not reject the coin with Caesar’s image because it was Roman and thus not “outside source”.

First it started with rejecting how most churches acted.

And does the hypothesis “Catholicism [or Christianity] is true.” lead to conclusion that behaviour of priests, Catholics, Christians will be impeccable? No? It says that all of them are inevitably sinners? Then, why did you reject the hypothesis after seeing that it leads to a correct prediction?

On the other hand, I was always interested in science and as the years continued, I rejected more and more about what genesis said.

Are you sure that you rejected “what [G]enesis said” and not “what you thought Genesis said”?

After all, it is not very clear what, for example, Genesis 1 really says beyond “Universe has been created by God; Sun, Moon, stars, animals are not exceptions.” (catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-six-days-of-creation , catholic.com/tract/creation-and-genesis).

 

[Thom18]

OK, let’s take one example of “clear evidence”:

For yes, Caesar was a Roman god. For example, there was a temple built to him - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Caesar. And you did offer evidence (presumably, “clear” in your view) that he existed. Thus, we have “clear” evidence of existence of a god. Q.E.D.

If necessary, there is also a great number of Roman emperors, Japanese emperors and Egyptian Pharaohs in reserve.

But, of course, in fact you will not be very satisfied with this answer. It might be true, but it is boring and leads nowhere.

And we are not very interested in your “Umbrella” that mixes God and gods for the same reason.

The difference between them is great: gods are just powerful beings, but God can be expected to be some sort of basis of existence, goodness, truth… Thus creator of the Universe is a pretty good candidate.

What do you mean by “outside sources”? Sources that are non-Jewish, non-Christian, non-Muslim, non-Mormon and the like? But that just leaves “sources that do not believe God of Abraham exists”. No, I don’t think you can get sources that do not believe X directly confirming X - for any X. And thus no, I do not think that is a very honest requirement.

In fact, you do not use this requirement when you like the claim: you did not reject the coin with Caesar’s image because it was Roman and thus not “outside source”.

And does the hypothesis “Catholicism [or Christianity] is true.” lead to conclusion that behaviour of priests, Catholics, Christians will be impeccable? No? It says that all of them are inevitably sinners? Then, why did you reject the hypothesis after seeing that it leads to a correct prediction?

Are you sure that you rejected “what [G]enesis said” and not “what you thought Genesis said”?

After all, it is not very clear what, for example, Genesis 1 really says beyond “Universe has been created by God; Sun, Moon, stars, animals are not exceptions.” (catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-six-days-of-creation , catholic.com/tract/creation-and-genesis).

 

[tony12356]

You appear to research in the wrong Berlin library.

What of the churches and images in the catacombs? Fake news? Is it.

Jesus as a myth is unsupported until many centuries later when scholars became dolts and dupes. Oh wait, when were they not? Let’s ask Socrates.

What of crucifixes and even moreso the shroud? All a hoax. If poor Lazarus rose from the dead to tell our brothers Jesus is risen would they listen then?

Well first off most images we have date several centuries after Jesus. So these images are based of what was either orally told or written. I also don’t appreciate you misrepresenting my position. I never said Jesus was a myth. The rest of your questions are just assuming the bible is true.

 

[IWantGod]

Can anyone provide clear evidence for the existence of a god or gods?

1. Absolutely nothing cannot exist as a true ontological state.
2. A necessary being must therefore exist
3. A necessary being does not change because all of its being is necessarily actual and therefore not potentially actual
4. Physical reality changes and is therefore not necessary reality
5. Necessary reality is not physical reality and is therefore not physical in nature.

Conclusion: An absolute necessary non-physical being exists. This is God.

 

[tony12356]

For yes, Caesar was a Roman god. For example, there was a temple built to him - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Caesar. And you did offer evidence (presumably, “clear” in your view) that he existed. Thus, we have “clear” evidence of existence of a god. Q.E.D.

Well, if you believe that Caesar was a God, then congrats. It’s interesting that you would believe that he was a God just because others did. I will be happy to look at the evidence.

If necessary, there is also a great number of Roman emperors, Japanese emperors and Egyptian Pharaohs in reserve.

But, of course, in fact you will not be very satisfied with this answer. It might be true, but it is boring and leads nowhere.

And we are not very interested in your “Umbrella” that mixes God and gods for the same reason.

The difference between them is great: gods are just powerful beings, but God can be expected to be some sort of basis of existence, goodness, truth… Thus creator of the Universe is a pretty good candidate.

It’s interesting that you assume that if a God existed, he/she would have to be good and never lie. By the way you need to understand something. Just because you don’t accept these “gods” as “Gods” doesn’t mean that others do. So I will continue to use the dictionary definition. If you want to define a God in a way that excludes all other view besides the Abram God then so be it. So I just have one question for you. What are your thoughts on Yahweh’s wife?

What do you mean by “outside sources”? Sources that are non-Jewish, non-Christian, non-Muslim, non-Mormon and the like? But that just leaves “sources that do not believe God of Abraham exists”. No, I don’t think you can get sources that do not believe X directly confirming X - for any X. And thus no, I do not think that is a very honest requirement.

Thank you for asking a question and then trying to answer the question you asked me. No, I am not excluding any sources that are written by religious people. By outside sources I mean outside the bible. See, Christians claim that the bible is true. So I’m asking for evidence outside of the bible that can verify the bible’s claims. To be clear, I was asking for outside eyewitness accounts. It’s kind of the same type of evidence that you would want to have for verifying that Muhammad really did split the moon in half.

In fact, you do not use this requirement when you like the claim: you did not reject the coin with Caesar’s image because it was Roman and thus not “outside source”.

Wrong. See, every claim requires different amount of evidence. For example, If you claimed that you owned a dog, I would believe you. That claim isn’t extraordinary and I know that people actually own dogs. Now, if you claimed that you own a pet fire breathing dragon, I would need more than just eyewitness accounts. Believing that someone named Caesar existed and had power over land will require more than just coins as evidence, which by the way isn’t the only evidence. However, claiming that a God impregnated a virgin who would give birth to the son of God, which would then preform miracles and raise the dead is something that I need more than just 4 accounts of in a book which we don’t have original copies of. After all, we have hundreds of people who claim to have seen Bigfoot and I don’t accept those eyewitness accounts as sufficient evidence.

 

[tony12356]

1. Absolutely nothing cannot exist as a true ontological state.
2. A necessary being must therefore exist
3. A necessary being does not change because all of its being is necessarily actual and therefore not potentially actual
4. Physical reality changes and is therefore not necessary reality
5. Necessary reality is not physical reality and is therefore not physical in nature.

Conclusion: An absolute necessary non-physical being exists. This is God.

I reject premise two since it assumes a “being” is necessary. Why can’t it be “something”? So it should read as 2. Something must therefore exists.

 

[IWantGod]

I reject premise two since it assumes a “being” is necessary. Why can’t it be “something”? So it should read as 2. Something must therefore exists.

Because there is no causal relationship between nothing and something, so if anything exists at all it is because its nature is necessary (Its nature cannot not exist) or its nature is contingent upon a nature that is necessary (its nature doesn’t have to exist at all)… A thing cannot arbitrarily exist.

 

[tony12356]

Because there is no causal relationship between nothing and something, so if anything exists at all it is because its nature is necessary or its nature is contingent upon a nature that is necessary (its nature cannot not exist)… A thing cannot arbitrarily exist.

But why are you assuming its a being? Why not a something? A being fits into the category of something. So if a being can exist then something can exist.