What would you do if it were proven...?

[Pieman333272]

John the Baptist says to Jesus “It’s you who should be baptising me”, and his death is the central part of the doctrine.

…Which actually proves my point, because that is the text in MATTHEW, which (according to scholars) comes after MARK, where the Criterion is. Matthew changed it because it embarrassed his position (note that this doesn’t weaken the historicity of Matthew - I will expand on this if you wish).

christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/03/criteria-of-embarrassment-and-jesus.html

 

[kaid100]

…Which actually proves my point, because that is the text in MATTHEW, which (according to scholars) comes after MARK, where the Criterion is. Matthew changed it because it embarrassed his position (note that this doesn’t weaken the historicity of Matthew - I will expand on this if you wish).

christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010/03/criteria-of-embarrassment-and-jesus.html

Ah, so sometimes the gospel writers changed the events to fit the doctrine? Interesting. Anyway, I’m going to skip out of this now, we’ve drifted far off-topic.

 

[Pieman333272]

Ah, so sometimes the gospel writers changed the events to fit the doctrine? Interesting. Anyway, I’m going to skip out of this now, we’ve drifted far off-topic.

OK. Let me know if you want to continue on this point, as I said before I can still defend the reliability of Matthew based on this but if you’re not interested that’s fine too.

 

[PRmerger]

Cleopatra was mentioned on the contemporary Rosetta Stone. However, even that fact is not enough to make me believe she was a god.

Believe she was a god? Who has proposed that?

I just wonder if you ever go on history forums proclaiming that Cleopatra never existed since there are no coeval documents of her existence.

Actually, I am being a bit coy when I ask this question about Cleopatra and Hannibal, for I already know the answer. You, of course, do not doubt their existence. No reasonable person does.

The question is posed because it provides an excellent example of the double standard some atheists hold. For some reason, they hold the existence of Jesus to a higher standard than any other historical figure. They will not doubt the existence of Cicero. Nor of Galen. Nor Genghis Khan.

But for some reason, some demand historical proof of Jesus’ existence that they do not demand for any other historical figure. :coffeeread:

 

[Curious_Seed]

Hi,

I’m new here on CAF but thought I’d post a question which interests me.

For those who are theists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does not exist”

For those who are atheists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does exist”

Thanks for taking the time.

There is a loose stone, in the bridge of your thought.

Undefined satisfaction.

What is satisfaction to a human, especially in contemplation of God?

Difficult to say, but easier to confirm that it varies, within each of us, with degrees of significance often uncertain.

Too much ambivalence in the word, for any meaningful reply beyond being merely transitorily anecdotal.

 

[Candide_West]

This is a curious position, as it has no basis in reality.

Again, as I’ve stated in a pridian post, the Church does not impose its opinions; rather it proposes. You are certainly free to ponder and accept it, or ponder and reject it. But, as you so rightly profess, you must deal with the consequences of your decision.

Again you seem to be replying to things I haven’t said. I have NEVER said that the church does impose limits. I have said that only being able to have one opinion (or die) is a negative limitation. Whether that is your opinion about God, politics or whatever else.

I thought I had clarified this misunderstanding back on post 496. Which you appeared to understand in 497. Now we are back to where we started. Again, please stop replying to things I haven’t said, it is not a useful direction for conversation since it can only take us in circles.

 

[06convert]

The only way I’ll concede to the non-existence of God would be for me to die and nothing happens. Then I suppose that wont matter much to the person trying to prove me wrong.

The bottom line is, there is nothing in this world that will convince me that God doesn’t exist. I’m sure that many non-theists feel the same way.

There was a time I didn’t believe in God. A friend of mine said isn’t better to worship Him just in case God does exist.

Although my faith is now much deeper than that. The concept is still in the back of my mind. If I worship God and it all turns out to be a big hoax, then I die and nothing happens. Oh well. But if I die and it turns out this is all true. I get to live for eternity in total bliss. Cool.

 

[Candide_West]

Then obviously I would not believe in God. If there were proof against God that would stand firmly against every counterargument, the only rational and logical thing to do would be to abandon such a silly belief in God (proven to be “silly” by this supposed “proof”).

Of course, there is no such proof, or at least none that I know of.

Thanks for writing Scaun, entirely fair position.

I don’t know of any such proof either. To be honest I don’t think that such a proof is even theoretically possible.

 

[PRmerger]

I have said that only being able to have one opinion (or die) is a negative limitation. Whether that is your opinion about God, politics or whatever else.

This paradigm is quite peculiar. What if this “opinion” is the correct one? Is it then a “negative” limitation?

Let’s say it is my “opinion” that my child must eat her green beans. Is that a negative? (Not eating healthful foods will lead to death.)
Or I say that it is my “opinion” one ought not cheat on her spouse. Is that a negative? (Not being faithful will lead to death of one’s marriage)
Or that I propose that it is my “opinion” that stealing from the offertory box is sinful. Is that a negative? (Not having integrity will lead to death of one’s conscience.)

Again, please stop replying to things I haven’t said, it is not a useful direction for conversation since it can only take us in circles.

I will certainly do my best!

 

[Candide_West]

This paradigm is quite peculiar. *What if this “opinion” is the correct one? *Is it then a “negative” limitation?

I would say that it is, yes. I think I (and everyone else) should always be free to change opinions. Being limited to one opinion can lead to closed mindedness if voluntary or totalitarianism if externally enforced.

Besides, in those areas where people commonly have a wide variety of different opinions (ie politics, religion etc) it is often difficult to know what is “correct”. Ie one person will be certain that X is absolutely right, another will be convinced that X is absolutely wrong. Who is right?

Let’s say it is my “opinion” that my child must eat her green beans. *Is that a negative? (Not eating healthful foods will lead to death.)
Or I say that it is my “opinion” one ought not cheat on her spouse. *Is that a negative? (Not being faithful will lead to death of one’s marriage)
Or that I propose that it is my “opinion” that stealing from the offertory box is sinful. *Is that a negative? *(Not having integrity will lead to death of one’s conscience.)

Ok, in all of those occasions you are (as far as I know) entirely free to change your opinion. Are you saying that you couldn’t? For example if it was discovered that green beans are carcinogenic. Are you so ideologically committed to your child eating beans that you’d kill yourself if someone proved to you that green beans are bad for her?*

If so then yes I’d consider this an unfortunate limitation on your freedom.*

If not then I’m afraid I don’t see how this is relevant?

I will certainly do my best! *

Thanks, I appreciate the effort.

 

[PRmerger]

I would say that it is, yes. I think I (and everyone else) should always be free to change opinions. Being limited to one opinion can lead to closed mindedness if voluntary or totalitarianism if externally enforced.

We are agreed, then!

Now, of course you know that the CC teaches everyone is free to change opinions, yes?

And, in the Church there is no “enforcement” of doctrines.

Besides, in those areas where people commonly have a wide variety of different opinions (ie politics, religion etc) it is often difficult to know what is “correct”. Ie one person will be certain that X is absolutely right, another will be convinced that X is absolutely wrong. Who is right?

Exactly. Without God one cannot really know in these arenas who is right.

Ok, in all of those occasions you are (as far as I know) entirely free to change your opinion.

Right.

This is so peculiar, as I am almost certain that you understand that the Church does not limit our freedom to change our opinions, thus am at a loss as to why you keep proposing this paradigm of being unable to change.

Change is at the heart of the Gospel message, Candide!

 

[kaid100]

Believe she was a god? Who has proposed that?

I just wonder if you ever go on history forums proclaiming that Cleopatra never existed since there are no coeval documents of her existence.

Actually, I am being a bit coy when I ask this question about Cleopatra and Hannibal, for I already know the answer. You, of course, do not doubt their existence. No reasonable person does.

The question is posed because it provides an excellent example of the double standard some atheists hold. For some reason, they hold the existence of Jesus to a higher standard than any other historical figure. They will not doubt the existence of Cicero. Nor of Galen. Nor Genghis Khan.

But for some reason, some demand historical proof of Jesus’ existence that they do not demand for any other historical figure. :coffeeread:

I’m going to take a step back and go back to the point that we started from. If it was proven that god existed, i would believe in Him. We can talk about ancient scripture till the cows come home, but even if Jesus existed, it doesn’t imply God did. I would actually place Jesus amongst a group including Arthur, Romulus and Achilles in that there may have once been someone that was the original for the legend, or there may not. But even if there were, that doesn’t mean I believe the fantastical elements of the legends such as a Green Knight who can reattach his severed head, being brought up by a wolf and ascending as a god called Quirinius or being invulnerable on every part of his body except his heelt.

The other figures you name differ from these in that some of them have contemporary (not decades later) records, and the events the records describe do not include fantastical elements. It’s theoretically possible one of them might not exist, I’ve actually never heard of Galen, but even if they did exist I wouldn’t assume God does exist because that person does. Nor would I join a religion they founded. I’m signing off this thread now because we’ve drifted off-topic, but thankyou.

 

[PRmerger]

I’We can talk about ancient scripture till the cows come home, but even if Jesus existed, it doesn’t imply God did.

Right. This is a different argument than whether Jesus existed in history.

I would actually place Jesus amongst a group including Arthur, Romulus and Achilles in that there may have once been someone that was the original for the legend, or there may not.

Excellent. This is a start, then. Acknowledgement that Jesus may have existed. But he was just a man and his apostles spread the myth of his resurrection? Is that what you’re considering here?

If so, can you explain how a myth of this proportion could have spread within 1 or 2 generations of the eyewitnesses? Surely, when any of the disciples proclaimed the “myth” of the Resurrection there were people around who would have said, “Wait a minute! That most certainly did NOT happen!”

Aquinas argued that if the Incarnation did not really occur, then the bigger miracle was this: the conversion of the world by the biggest lie in history. The complete transformation of lives into self-forgetful love and radically new heights of holiness, martyrs going to their bloody deaths singing the Psalms–all of this for a myth? That’s pretty miraculous to be sure!

There was a challenge in the nineteenth century by a Christian, Julius Muller, to produce a single example anywhere in history of a myth or great legend arising around a historical figure that was generally believed within 30 years of the figure’s death. To my knowledge, no one has been able to answer him.

Can you? Is there any example of a great legend/lie arising around a historical figure that was spread within a generation of his death–so much so that people forgot the actual reality of this historical figure’s life?

 

[PRmerger]

IThe other figures you name differ from these in that some of them have contemporary (not decades later) records, and the events the records describe do not include fantastical elements. It’s theoretically possible one of them might not exist, I’ve actually never heard of Galen, but even if they did exist I wouldn’t assume God does exist because that person does. Nor would I join a religion they founded. I’m signing off this thread now because we’ve drifted off-topic, but thankyou.

This is to be expected, kaid.

I’ve had many, many dialogues with young atheists (you sound young to me) who propose questions, then, when are asked to provide answers to Believers’ questions, squirm, and in the guise of being “off topic”, (or “bored”–I’ve heard that one a time or two) leave.

But I hope I have put some thoughts in your mind that, perhaps, the paradigm you’re following is illogical and proclaims your nescience on history and philosophy and generalized reason.

 

[samiam1611]

Now, of course you know that the CC teaches everyone is free to change opinions, yes? ???

This is so peculiar, as I am almost certain that you understand that the Church does not limit our freedom to change our opinions, thus am at a loss as to why you keep proposing this paradigm of being unable to change.

Change** is at the heart of the Gospel message**, Candide!

This post contradicts everything I’ve read about Catholicism. Do the words Protestant, cafeteria Catholic, and heretic, ring a bell? I’ve heard dozens of times on the forum people saying things like “the church is always right, if you do not understand a certain teaching, pray to God and He will show you,” “the Church can never change bc that would be admitting She was wrong.”
example: contraception

From the CCC:
"No one - no individual and no community - can proclaim the Gospel to himself: “Faith comes from what is heard.391 No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel”
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417
The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.
The Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420

Could you explain yourself?

 

[Candide_West]

We are agreed, then!

Excellent, I do believe we have finally managed to make it right the way back to the starting point. To be clear, have you now agreed that being limited to a single opinion is a limitation on freedom (and a negative one at that)???

Exactly. Without God one cannot really know in these arenas who is right.

Disagree, in fact you have taken exactly the wrong meaning from that sentence, perhaps I should have written that slightly differently. To be clear, this sentence applied to religion specifically would have been written something like…

"Ie one person will be certain that X is absolutely right because his God tells him so, another will be convinced that X is absolutely wrong because his God tells him so. Who is right? "

That is the point, it is irresolvable. It is also a common situation and the cause of a great deal of strife. Both sides simply saying “well I know they’re wrong because God told us X is wrong / right” only serves to entrench those divides.

This is so peculiar, as I am almost certain that you understand that the Church does not limit our freedom to change our opinions, thus am at a loss as to why you keep proposing this paradigm of being unable to change.

Change is at the heart of the Gospel message, Candide!

Yes, it is very perculiar, perhaps you have forgotten why you started this conversation? Rolypoly said in response to my OP “I would probably kill myself because what is the point anyway?”. So Rolypoly was saying that he/she had applied this limitation to his/her own life.

I haven’t proposed anything, Rolypoly (and for that matter a number of other Catholics on this thread) have suggested that they would impose this limitation on their own lives. All I have done is to comment that I find the limitation they have imposed on themselves an unfortunate restriction on freedom.

Nobody on here to the best of my knowledge has suggested that the catholic church doesn’t permit people to leave or enforces it’s rules. Indeed from what I have seen most catholics I know take the parts of their faith which agrees with their view of morality and reject the rest.

I really hope we have finally managed to get this resolved, this must be one of the longest running misunderstandings I have ever been engaged in.

 

[Candide_West]

OK. Let me know if you want to continue on this point, as I said before I can still defend the reliability of Matthew based on this but if you’re not interested that’s fine too.

Pieman, I’d be interested in this discussion if you are still around. I’m quite interested to see where you were going with this. So to help things along I’ll accept for now your suggestion that Jesus was a real person.

Personally I think it’s quite likely that there were one or a number of real people who were written about in the events in the NT. In a similar way to Kaid really, as he said about King Arthur, Achilles, and Romulus. I think it’s reasonably likely that there was a person or a few real people behind those stories too.

 

[PRmerger]

Excellent, I do believe we have finally managed to make it right the way back to the starting point. To be clear, have you now agreed that being limited to a single opinion is a limitation on freedom (and a negative one at that)???

Absolutely not!

This is what we are agreed on, which is quite a bit different from your premise above:

I think I (and everyone else) should always be free to change opinions. Being limited to one opinion can lead to closed mindedness if voluntary or totalitarianism if externally enforced.

 

[PRmerger]

To be clear, this sentence applied to religion specifically would have been written something like…

"Ie one person will be certain that X is absolutely right because his God tells him so, another will be convinced that X is absolutely wrong because his God tells him so. Who is right? "

Right.

And Catholics have the Magisterium to be this final arbiter of truth. Atheists and Protestants, sadly, do not have the benefit of this final authority.

That is the point, it is irresolvable. It is also a common situation and the cause of a great deal of strife. Both sides simply saying “well I know they’re wrong because God told us X is wrong / right” only serves to entrench those divides.

See above.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it is very perculiar, perhaps you have forgotten why you started this conversation? Rolypoly said in response to my OP “I would probably kill myself because what is the point anyway?”. So Rolypoly was saying that he/she had applied this limitation to his/her own life.

Ok.

I haven’t proposed anything, Rolypoly (and for that matter a number of other Catholics on this thread) have suggested that they would impose this limitation on their own lives. All I have done is to comment that I find the limitation they have imposed on themselves an unfortunate restriction on freedom.

Fair enough. It is a limitation he has imposed upon himself, but it certainly is not the result of Catholic teaching that he proposes this.

Nobody on here to the best of my knowledge has suggested that the catholic church doesn’t permit people to leave or enforces it’s rules.

Indeed from what I have seen most catholics I know take the parts of their faith which agrees with their view of morality and reject the rest.

Tis true, to be sure. Sad, but, alas, true. :sad_yes: