Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

I wish atheists would come clean and just admit it's more the nature of the claim rather than it being a claim.

I'm not sure I get the distinction - or, rather, given the supernatural elements inherent in the claim of 'god', how do you differentiate the specific claim from the nature of the claim? I'd suggest that, given atheists don't just dismiss Christian theology, but also Hindu and Islamic and all the others on broadly the same basis, there isn't really a differentiation on the part of atheists.

In extreme examples i've seen atheists dismiss christian claims that are 18 centuries old and accept without question Jesus as myth claims from a couple of centuries later.

And there are Christians who accept that Genesis is a literal account of the creation - there are people who haven't done their research (or who've ignored it) on both sides.

On another point I think you may view the term theology here as mythology.

It's a fine line to tread between them. The mythology is the stories; theology is presuming the stories are factual and then trying to come up with explanations and consequences.

That would be a mistake since you can have a theology about any historical person and event.

And you can have a mythology about historic people or events, too - The Trojan War was likely a real event, but Homer's Odyssey and Iliad are mythology based on them; the legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood are possibly based upon (probably multiple) real people, but the mythology has overtaken any strong history. Jesus was likely a real person, but whether you think turning water into wine, casting demons into pigs and rising from the dead are myth or history is kind of the distinction that's at the heart of these discussions.

I suppose there are two approaches to not having eyewitnesses write the gospels.

I suppose there are far more than just two.

one way would be to say the gospels could be based on eyewitness and the other but extreme view is to conclude there were no eyewitnesses it never happened it's all made up or some other argument from incredulity

Or you could presume that there were eye-witnesses, but the stories were mutated over multiple retellings; or you could presume that there were eye-witnesses, but only the fact that there were stories, not the stories themselves, were passed on and some enterprising individual made up what seemed a good tale for them; or there were eye-witnesses and they told their stories, and someone thought they were too boring and embellished them; or...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or you could presume that there were eye-witnesses, but the stories were mutated over multiple retellings; or you could presume that there were eye-witnesses, but only the fact that there were stories, not the stories themselves, were passed on and some enterprising individual made up what seemed a good tale for them; or there were eye-witnesses and they told their stories, and someone thought they were too boring and embellished them; or...

O.

Then you have to explain how this mutation occurs peculiarly or especially in judeo christianity and christian literature and not in the
Roman histories, or Homer or Plato or Josephus or Buddhism or Islam etc, etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not the nature of the claim. No claim on it's own is evidence.

  We have to test the claim with an open mind. A commitment to naturalism prevents that since they have a singular view of words like test etc and those meanings become the equivalent of sacred to them

[Nearly Sane]

  We have to test the claim with an open mind. A commitment to naturalism prevents that since they have a singular view of words like test etc and those meanings become the equivalent of sacred to them

How do you 'test' it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not the nature of the claim. No claim on it's own is evidence.

I'm not a Jesus mythicist. I think Jesus probably existed and was probably crucified but I don't believe that Jesus was resurrected because I'm not convinced by the evidence. Documents written decades after the events making claims isn't convincing. They could have been based on eye witness accounts but they may not and to claim that they are needs supporting evidence for I to be convincing. The fact would still be though that eye witness accounts are not great evidence on their own.

Basically I have no belief and don't see documents written decades after the events which contain unsupported claims of what might have happened as convincing to make me believe.

The christian claim is that Jesus is risen and that He can be encountered
I believe that it is also premature to write resurrection off If the materialistic view is correct and life and consciousness is merely a question of how matter is arranged then I cannot see how we can dismiss it as a possible technology and certainly not one beyond God

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you 'test' it?

I think the key thing is the open mind
A closed unbelieving mind has difficulty indulging it's ''what if it IS true?'' thoughts
Those need to be addressed
Maybe one feels an aversion that would need to be explored and got to the bottom of IMHO

[Nearly Sane]

I think the key thing is the open mind
A closed unbelieving mind has difficulty indulging it's ''what if it IS true?'' thoughts
Those need to be addressed
Maybe one feels an aversion that would need to be explored and got to the bottom of IMHO

None of that is a how.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of that is a how.

They are things one can try and ways which will change one's usual modus.
I have come across people who have come back minutes after I have suggested such claiming to have tried the self exploration and it not working but ''minutes'' doesn't sound adequate or at any depth.

[Sebastian Toe]

They are things one can try and ways which will change one's usual modus.
I have come across people who have come back minutes after I have suggested such claiming to have tried the self exploration and it not working but ''minutes'' doesn't sound adequate or at any depth.

How long then  as a minimum is adequate?

[Nearly Sane]

They are things one can try and ways which will change one's usual modus.
I have come across people who have come back minutes after I have suggested such claiming to have tried the self exploration and it not working but ''minutes'' doesn't sound adequate or at any depth.

Again they are not a how. They read more like buzz words.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How long then  as a minimum is adequate?

I think the mistake is to just think of it as a question of length. It is of course the length and depth of examination
You might be faster at doing sums than considering or examining your self so it would be a mistake to use the criteria for the former for the latter. It could be argued that such exploration might be lifelong.

Then again if you are experiencing aversion it might be that your subconscious and/or conscience is trying to tell you something.

[Maeght]

  We have to test the claim with an open mind. A commitment to naturalism prevents that since they have a singular view of words like test etc and those meanings become the equivalent of sacred to them

You assess the claim based on evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again they are not a how. They read more like buzz words.

They may seem that way, vague wooly and general but as I have said they can still go untried or insufficiently approached.

How suggests technique like baking a cake but I think the goal is encounter...like meeting your partner.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How suggests technique like baking a cake but I think the goal is encounter...like meeting your partner.

How would you know whether you've actually "encountered" something rather than just persuaded yourself that you've done that?

What if I were to tell you that I really, really think I've encountered a leprechaun. Would you think my claim was evidence that I had in fact done that?   

Why not?

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You assess the claim based on evidence.

And there is evidence of Christ and a very early community that believe how christians believe today.
The Claim that this is probably an itinerent magician and miracle worker whose story mutated seems the narrative with less evidence here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And there is evidence of Christ and a very early community that believe how christians believe today.
The Claim that this is probably an itinerent magician and miracle worker whose story mutated seems the narrative with less evidence here.

How have you calculated that a story with several of the hallmarks of a trick (no verification of actual death, hiding the object with a big stone while a switcheroo could be done, ta-daaa! the big reveal to follow etc) has “less evidence” than a supernatural occurrence for which there can be probabilistic model of evaluation at all?         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

How would you know whether you've actually "encountered" something rather than just persuaded yourself that you've done that?

I suppose you then test it by trying to persuade your self you hadn't encountered it.

What if I were to tell you that I really, really think I've encountered a leprechaun. Would you think my claim was evidence that I had in fact done that?

Given you are constantly telling me i'm in the equivalent of Leprechaun territory I should have come across the little fellers but I haven't.  You would of course encourage me to follow the steps on how you found them not wishing for me to hold faith in them merely because you do.
You have though to date not offered personal testimony to an encounter with Leprechauns...or indeed anything by way of self exploration by you.

[Sebastian Toe]

I think the mistake is to just think of it as a question of length. It is of course the length and depth of examination
You might be faster at doing sums than considering or examining your self so it would be a mistake to use the criteria for the former for the latter. It could be argued that such exploration might be lifelong.
.

It could also be argued then that if done properly, minutes could very well be sufficient?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It could also be argued then that if done properly, minutes could very well be sufficient?

Can God convict a person in minutes? There is the calling of Matthew the tax collector Matthew 9 9-13 Mark 2 13-17 Luke5 27-28

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

How have you calculated that a story with several of the hallmarks of a trick (no verification of actual death, hiding the object with a big stone while a switcheroo could be done, ta-daaa! the big reveal to follow etc) has “less evidence” than a supernatural occurrence for which there can be probabilistic model of evaluation at all?       

See my reply to Outrider regarding his mutation of the account of Christ.
Common sense tells us that the account must be a corruption of what happened but holding that view could also be seen as argument from incredulity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I suppose you then test it by trying to persuade your self you hadn't encountered it.

Just as you persuade yourself that you haven’t encountered leprechauns right?

Shifting the burden of proof is your fallacy du jour just now, but it’s still a fallacy nonetheless. If you think you’ve “encountered” something and that that claim can be “tested”, then – after all these years of your ducking and diving – why not try at least finally to explain how that testing of your claim could be done? 

Given you are constantly telling me i'm in the equivalent of Leprechaun territory…

You’re in “leprechaun territory” epistemically when your attempts at justifying your various faith claim could apply equally to leprechauns, which happens quite often. 

I should have come across the little fellers but I haven't…

… like this for example. I have the same non-experience of “god”. So?

You would of course encourage me to follow the steps on how you found them not wishing for me to hold faith in them merely because you do.

So why don’t you do the same about your superstitious claims? What “steps on how” you “found” god should someone take to be sure that you haven’t just fooled yourself about that?

Why be so coy about that? 

You have though to date not offered personal testimony to an encounter with Leprechauns...

“Personal testimony” is epistemically worthless. Anyone can “personally testify” to any narrative they just happen to find personally persuasive. 

Again, so what though?

…or indeed anything by way of self exploration by you.

See above. You can tell yourself you’ve “self-explored” anything you like, but in your continued absence even to propose a method to justify the conclusion you reach (and for that matter to suggest why people who have “self-explored” just as thoroughly as you have and arrived at different gods, spooks and ghoulies entirely to your own are mistaken) than all you have is unqualified assertions.     

[Alan Burns]

What if I were to tell you that I really, really think I've encountered a leprechaun. Would you think my claim was evidence that I had in fact done that?   

Why not?

You would be in a tiny minority of ONE!
The number of people who honestly claim to have encountered Jesus in their lives is vast.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You would be in a tiny minority of ONE!
The number of people who honestly claim to have encountered Jesus in their lives is vast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Oh, and the number of people who honestly claim to have encountered Mohammed in their lives is greater than the number of people who think they’ve encountered Jesus. If you still want to think that the truth is a popularity contest though, you’ve backed the wrong horse.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

See my reply to Outrider regarding his mutation of the account of Christ.
Common sense tells us that the account must be a corruption of what happened but holding that view could also be seen as argument from incredulity.

What are you trying to say here? I’m only “incredulous” about the claims of a resurrection (the Jesus one not the Lazarus one or the others from prior religions) because the evidence for it so desperately flimsy that you’d never accept it for any other claim. If I’m wrong about that though, can i interest you in a bridge I have for sale? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

What are you trying to say here? I’m only “incredulous” about the claims of a resurrection 

That's enough to be guilty of argument from incredulity.....The business about buying a bridge is horses laugh fallacy.