Evidence that God is real

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Aug 31, 2018.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Read all about him.
    What an impressive life and achievement.
    What do you wish to discuss about this chap.

    Yes we covered all this.
    If it makes you happy I can understand what he is presenting.
    What I dont understand is how you could think that such a method could be used as evidence for god...the only evidence you can get from the approach is if folk believe there may be a god ... nothing to do with if there is a god..you do see the difference I hope.

    The method may work in certain situations and I acknowledged that fact and recalled that was the thinking behind the Gallaxy Zoo project.
    But as I understand it you think asking the mob re god has merit and I disagree...I know the method and now I know more about the chap when came up with the idea...I bet he would be the first to reject his method as useful to deyermine if god exists and no doubt being such a well informed individual would have known about the link between christianity and astrology and the many human gods who were in the same game as JC.

    Alex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    However, this approach was eviscerated pages ago. It doesn't apply to all forms of knowledge.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    As others are pointing out, there is a big difference between a statistical tool and a litmus test.

    A bunch of people guessing beans in a jar can approach a statistically accurate answer.
    A bunch of people believing in God doesn't indicate it's the "correct" answer.


    Notice, by the way, that the reason a bunch of people can approach some degree of accuracy in guessing beans in a jar is because every one of them is given the opportunity to observe the jar of beans and estimate its properties.

    Imagine if the playing field were leveled:

    Your parents: "Here is an ancient book that talks about an even ancienter guy who once saw a vessel of beans appear in a bush. So overwhelmed was he with its sudden appearance, he lay prostrate on the ground..."
    You: "Can I see the vessel?"
    P: "If you have faith, the vessel of beans will make itself known to you."
    You: "And then I can count the beans, based on the size o the vessel?"
    P: "It can be as big as your faith. It have as many beans in it as it wants."
    You: "That may compromise my estimate."

    Repeat one billion times.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    To show I am thinking nice thoughts I took the time to find a link that approaches my "wild" claims in a somewhat milder manner☺.

    I sincerely hope given your interest in history you find some value☺.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology

    If you are indeed an agnostic you will read it with vigour yet if a theist in agnostic camo clothing you wont...and you wont say that you have not☺.

    Having said that and in an effort to be honest and not hide from you what I am thinking I feel I must share my thoughts☺.

    I get the impression your game is much like the intelligent design mob trying to sneak god into science class presenting all inoccent and that they are without any preconceived idea that god could be the designer and merely following the evidence to a conclusion they do not yet know....yet they do know because they have set up a game as one could do in chess leading your opponent to a checkmate☺.

    Your neutrality became suspect when I observed that when Micheal did not fall for your ploy and you told him that he was full of crap, and shortley after you told me that I was full of crap because I did not fall for your openning gambit...and then your poo poo rant...those responces suggest you have already made your decision about god and are intent on sneeeking in the notion as some sort of discovery that you as a nuetral agnostic were forced to conclude☺.

    But your casual step one, to introduce legitimate statistical method is very much similar to intelligent designers pretending to do science, and when you failed so you spat the dummy big time☺.

    Hardley nuetral and suggestive of anger that your simple plan was not working☺.

    Why else would you lash out, why else would you defend a undefendable position re the wrong application of statistics?☺

    Well after I and others read your link and used material in the very same link to point out that your idea was inappropriate you hung on
    ....why...well I think everyone knows why including you☺.

    In retrospect we should have gone along for the ride so we could witness what other casual nuetral observations would force you to eventually come down on the god side☺.

    Your plan was to demonstrate how a reasonable man would reach a reasonable conclusion by looking objectively at all the evidence☺.

    I do wish we had let you go so as to see your next piece of objective evidence ...what is it by the way...let me guess..where does morality come from?...am U right or am I right☺.

    I can guess why you dont like me and I bet its because I am too stupid not to see your logic and fall for your clever little plan☺.

    Heck if you cant fool the biggest mug (me) on his site I can see why you got upset☺.

    Now I dont generally go after people but in your case honestly I feel so inclinded because I suspect, with some justification, that you are being less than truthful as to your position☺.

    You claim nuetrality but your various outbursts and insults suggest an emotional attachment not consistent with your stated positition☺.

    You claim a historical interest yet limit the period of interest to a period and of matters one could expect to be covered in bible classes...tell me...did you learn your history in bible class or from a creationist web site☺..

    You make no comment when I mention christianity and astrology which one could think would be of great interest if one is interested in why JC was invented...do you think JC was a real person but still not sure he was raised from the dead?☺

    And you dont respond to my calls to present a fact or observation or statistical method for the non god side...clearly you are not nuetral☺.
    Do you have anything for the no god side or couldnt you find anything for that side of the arguement☺.

    How agnostic are you on the following matters?☺

    Adam and Eve were mythical or not☺.

    The great flood was a correct historical account or not☺.

    Hell is real or not☺.

    JC died but rose 3 days later or not☺.

    Christianity is directly based on astrology☺.

    Evolution is real or not☺.

    Intelligent design is science or not☺

    If I am wrong about you I am sorry but if I am right I suggest you ask yourself if you really want to involve yourself with a belief that causes you to be dishonest and tricky to prove to others that there is a god and how you can think that playing the game you appear to be playing is decent or indeed consistent with any of the teachings of any of the mythical human gods☺.
    Look in the mirror and ask yourself those questions...and look at the eyes so you can tell if you are lieing☺.

    Now most of all stay calm if you think that I am wrong say so calmly and just dont upset yourself☺.

    If you are infected with the god illness know that some folk recover but sadly most are so damaged they lose the ability to apply simple reason to expose to themselves the fact they are dealing with a terrible horrible con of which they are victim...and so read the history of astrology and its relation to the invention of all the human gods of which there are many☺.



    Alex
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    That's a pretty powerful assertion. What is the record on that?

    If we root around in the archives a bit, we might be able to find some old discussion on the historicity of Jesus. What I recall, both at Sciforums and from discourse in the living world, is that last I engaged, the Christians pushing the point were stuck in a cycle of rhetorical convenience; there was a dubious bit having to do with Eusebius, and it was possible to witness, in the world at least, and maybe here over a longer term, advocates disagreeing with themselves over the validity of Josephus. In any case the record seems fairly clear: References to Christ are, in fact, references to the social phenomenon, the movement or ministry around his name; none validate an individual°.

    Unless that's changed. And, honestly, I don't go scouring the news for this on any regular basis, but I should have heard about such important evidence that we can affirmatively argue an historical Jesus.

    What is it? When did it emerge? Who is making the argument?

    You tell me that Jesus was an identifiable historical person, "one more pretender who claimed to be God"? The news of the historicity of an individual as Jesus Christ should have absolutely shaken society. I know the news cycle has gotten to me in recent times, but that's not the whole of the period since I last considered the historicity of Jesus. How did I miss this?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° There is a disputed passage from Origen (Contra Celsus IV), when he refers to Numenius the Pythagorean describing a direct reference to the person of Jesus "without, however, mentioning His name"; writing at the time he did, Origen spared himself the effort of transcribing the relevant passage; the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Karamanolis↱) notes, of the available literary-historical record, "Three other works of Numenius, namely Epops, On Numbers, On place (Origen, Against Celsus IV.51; fr. 1c), were consulted by Origen but are only titles to us."​

    Karamanolis, George. "Numenius". (2009) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Revised 6 September 2013. Plato.Stanford.edu. 18 December 2018. https://stanford.io/2QAwUdL

    Origen. Contra Celsus IV. (ca. 248) EarlyChristianWritings.com. 18 December 2018. http://bit.ly/2S9FYms
     
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I see your point and you are correct.

    What I wrote was wrong or rather incorrect.

    In retrospect I must acknowlegde that I was perhaps too casual here.

    To claim there was a pretender requires the establishment of a historical JC which is a most ellusive proposition.

    Let the arguement continue if it must that there was a historical JC as little can come of it as I am sure anything that could be rolled out is now old news.

    What a little research does show is that many human gods were invented or perhaps one was invented from which many were copied, that tell us that these human gods were personifications of the Sun.

    The JC myth is just another myth following the basics of astrology to construct the story.

    Certainly I can not say there was a historical JC who pretended using the astrology format and that he was a pretender without establishing there was a specific human called JC.

    I suppose all I could say is that if there was indeed a historical JC and if the NT provides his account then the account was based on him being a pretender or the account was made up using the guidelines laid down in the astrology.

    So how could I have expressed myself better?

    Let me try....
    A great deal of research fails to establish a historical JC but in any event with a little research we find the JC story is a myth similar to many myths in ancient times developed along identifiable astrology lines.

    Alex
     
  10. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    Thank you for this and your other posts, I can see it was hard for you. The weekdays are hard for me to keep up on this message board due to work and a social life. I look forward to replying. Two more days of work and I'm off until after the new year.

    Thank you for your "civil" replies. I will also try my best to reply in good faith. It's almost 3am here so please have more patience. I'll try tomorrow but if not, the day after for sure. Work and real life take up most my time heh
     
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    My advice is to retire as work takes so much of your time.
    You look after yourself and if it helps you cope I really dont mind if you have a go at me.
    Its better to vent here rather than let things bubble over in the real world.
    Relax and be happy.
    Alex
     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    It is nice that you come here but you should focus on the real world.
    I am here to fill in time...at the moment I am recovering from minor surgery but most times I pop in while waiting for astro photos to stack or a processing program to chew thru a difficult task that I have set it.
    I expect that in your world being an atheist would be impossible and perhaps even an agnostic...but whatever your views you dont need to convince anyone ... proving you are right is a waste of time..I recognise no one will be swayed by what I say so that is why I will ptesent as over the top...folk can get excited thinking of how to manage me and shut my smart mouth up...and I wont get upset but folk get to have a lash and so maybe feel better.

    I do enjoy talking with you.
    Alex
     
  13. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    An impressive lad indeed. My favorite oral report back in my school days was on this fellow. Yes, before the Internet. When the dewey decimal system was required and thumbing through multiple books and encyclopedias was required. There is much to be discussed both good and bad but that is best saved for its own thread.

    Thank goodness *sigh of relief*.....
    The short answer:

    From my first post on in this thread I have maintained the position of "devils advocate" and have continually said that there are legitimate reasons this method is not useful to answer this specific question. This position of "devils advocacy" will end here.

    The long answer:

    After my first post the only counter arguments were based on opinions not facts. Some said "there is no wisdom in a masses", "The masses are stupid", "I was an idiot/stupid for even suggesting that masses can have wisdom". They even said that I was suggesting to throw science out the window and just hand out surveys instead (which was the most outrageous of all that said). If you care about facts as I do then these answers would not be acceptable by any standard.

    After that I challenged you and your friend to read about the method and if you came back here and said that method was krap then you are full of krap. I never said, flat out, that you were full of krap as you assert.

    After that post the Atheist community of Sciform (with the exception of one or two people) said the reason this method is invalid is because it helps if the answer is known. I personally agree with that reason but coming from an atheist this is a contradictory argument seeing as atheist consider the matter known. This too was an unacceptable answer based on the method I stated. I continue to hold that there are legitimate reasons this method is invalid but up until that point (save one or two people) nobody had used this method to counter me .... until now.

    I completely agree (no longer playing devils advocate). The problem is, as spidergoat stated, this method doesn't apply to all forms of knowledge. It is a subjective question. Asking if "god" exists is like asking; Which is better, cats or dogs? What is your favorite color? This method is not the best tool to analyze that kind of data.

    Once again, thank you. We took a very long road to get here heh. Now I can say with certainty, you are NOT full of krap.

    I agree he would disagree. He downplayed his own results when he published his findings on the "wisdom of the crowd" because he too assumed that the common people were not capable of intelligent decision making. He believed that the common people needed an aristocratic elite to make decisions for them. His own figures went against that eugenics narrative. He disagreed with his own findings then and would do so again for this question yet for far better reasons than "because he said so".
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018
  14. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    I read your link and know the subject matter. It doesn't has anything to do with this thread but I do have a lot to say about it. If you wish for a reply on comparative religion then just say. Using Christianity as a base source will indeed be influenced by both Jewish faith and greco roman paganism. The day Easter lands on is a perfect example.

    Eastern Orthodox follow the Jewish lunar calendar. Roman Catholic is influenced by pegan Rome.
     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Well even at the risk of sliding a little off topic you could say something.

    The way I understand things is that the JC MO was very common in ancient times and there are many human gods that all have the same or almost the same characteristics which basically suggest these human gods or their inventors relied upon personification of the Sun.


    I would have thought what I alledge is a historical fact and certainly would put JC in that box and therefore just another myth.


    There is not much that need be said...anything else re history Romans or Hebrews must take a back seat.

    There is no virtue in analysing JC when it is just another human god story.

    Well I would not have taken the time to write my post and presenting a variety of propositions and specific questions if I was not interested in your answer.

    If you dont wish to comment here I did open a thread relating to this ...Solar Gods or Human Gods ..I cant remember...but if you as you say have a lot to say well no doubt you will fimd it.

    However perhaps it is best not to waste your time here and spend it constructively in the real world.

    You will have your beliefs and me pointing out the history probably wont see you changing...you say you are not sure well that may be because you have complicated the matter when the only question is really was JC just another human god claiming attributes found in astrology.

    In any event go enjoy your break with love ones and friends.
    Alex
     
    davewhite04 likes this.
  16. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    I did. The day Easter lands on is different for Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. One is based on Jewish tradition (14th day of Nisan). The other based on Roman pagan tradition (first Sunday after the full moon of the Spring Equinox).

    You too .... cheers!!
     
    davewhite04 likes this.
  17. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    Are you are saying something along the lines that Horus is an Archetype of the Jewish Messiah? If so I would say that an argument can be made for that but it would be based solely on conjecture. Are there similarities? Yes. Just as there are similarities between Snow White and Sleeping Beauty.

    I don't see it as being that simple. The Jewish Messiah is based on the Greek translation of a Hebrew text.... JC is based on multiple verses of "ancient prophecies" (not as old as most think and not true prophecies) over multiple books writen independently of each other as seen from 1st-3rd century B.C.E\C.E. Greco-Roman (hellenized) minds.

    Horus was a single narrative, not true for the Jewish Messiah. What you and I know as Christianity was not codified until the 4th century C.E. with the Nicene Creed in 325 C.E.

    No single text of the "old testament" speaks solely of the Jewish Messiah. He is a cut and paste construction from multiple text from the Greek translations of the Hebrew. It just so happens that what you and I know as JC and Christianity is the ideology that won out from the many many many different ways the old text were cut and paste together.


    Agreed but it is not as simple as saying it all comes from some "common archetype" of some god. You can't look at ancient belief through the eyes of a 21 century human and expect to understand what it was they were trying to understand and put reason to.

    I hope you understand how lucky you and I are for being alive at this moment in time. Imagine for a min (daydream if you will) being born 2000 years ago.... It is easy to take for granted what we know and way to easy to forget how much we don't know.

    What is hard to understand and has persisted for thousands of years is tradition. Tradition is not as easy to shake/throw aside as superstition. Unfortunately, both can be intertwined.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2018
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Pretty much. Except although JC was Jewish he was not the "Jewish Messiah" ...they dont accept him and I suspect they know what I know☺.
    Its a christian thing...it was an off the self religion where you filled in your gods name and bingo ...your new god...plus I really suspect someone in Rome bought the franchise after all where do we find head office?

    There are more than just Horus and they all share an astrology approach personifying the Sun.

    Have you ever looked at a vid explaing it or read about any of this...I didnot just make it up...the claim is well evidenced.
    If JC had similar characteristic to many others what are the chances of him being real or the astrology story is what one claimed or was claimed about you to be a human god.

    Would not be the first eh.

    Horus may well have been first as it seems to have the Sun in the cross you need to be at the latitude around the Great Pyramid suggesting that may be where the first astrology came from...


    However that is a casual observation using my planetarium program setting the date back of course taking looks every thousand years...but probably the pyramid was built to line up with that point even...still irrelevant to the proposition of multiple human (astrology) gods.

    But one could think that would be a critical observation .. I may look more carefully one day...and they seemed keen on Orion which contains the three kings which sortta fit the line up. Almost certainly the Eygptians may have had the three kings (in Orion) being shown by Sirius where the Sun was born.
    Around that time when they saw Sirius rise they knew the Nile would flood ...imagine the religious political and economic power that would give you...and it did...they could predicte the economy taxes etc on the hight of the flood.

    I think astrology maybe started from there..if you fit all this it makes christianity maybe just another astrology story.

    Entirely different.

    If you had many snow whites all claiming to be Snow White what would you then think ...or multiple Sleeping Beauty types...could you not think it was somewhat of a fad or more likey equivalent to our modern day preacher making a living on giving folk that thing they dont understand but want, plus promises of this and threats of that...the point is there are many following this astrology MO that can only point to one thing surely.

    Anything you speculate upon can not pass that claim ...human gods were a bit of a fad all following the very same story line.

    Whats not to know...the fact remains we have multiple humans gods etc etc ...we know that...end of story.

    If you suggest that out of "we can forget we dont know" that you can find a trace of god go ahead"

    But I think is all you do is encourage speculation...as there is no evidence of any gods on this broarder approach.
    Of course it is that simple ...All the discussions etec the Councils even the whole of the New Testament is built upon a man who was supposed to be god...it seems like he was a pretender or rather fitting the story to JC calls it pit as a myth. ..it is that simple.
    It was a con but heck people are enjoying it dont worry about reality.

    Alex
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I guess the three pyramids should point to where Sirius rises also earlier than 25/12...I looked a the Three Kings and Sirius down hete bit they dont form a perfect line up so I expect Sirius may have moved...anyways JC was just another human god thats the point you need to look at really then ask real or not.
    Alex
     
  20. Acitnoids Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    704
    Lol, I hope you ment that in fair spirits. We wouldn't have one without the other now would we?

    One is based on Hebrew text, the other based on the Greek translation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2018
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Does it matter?
    You seem reluctant to acknowledge the proposition that JC was just one of many following the astrology story and the only conclusion one can draw therefrom.
    Moreover knowing the history must convince you to change your agnostic position to atheist if not my suspicion about you expressed earlier can only be correct.


    Alex
     
  22. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    I think you have mentioned this before, or maybe it was in the video that you shared. Anyway, I have to ask, don't you realize that the sun is never located "in" or even "near" the constellation Crux (the southern cross), no matter where one is viewing from? The sun is always somewhere on the ecliptic, and the southern cross is nowhere near the ecliptic. Doesn't that make you wonder what else might be completely wrong in the video you shared?

    Someone standing on the south pole would find the southern cross to be always located directly overhead (approximately), and they would find that the sun would always be located down near the horizon. Surely you must realize this, as someone who does astronomy photos for a hobby? So perhaps I have misunderstood. Please explain, thank you.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Thanks for being the only person to comment.
    You may be correct I will look into the matter.... the thing to note is you can say anything as wild as you like and most believers wont even look ...
    It does seem outrageous really☺
    Anyways let me deal with your observation that if we find one thing wrong the whole thing is suspect...
    I tend to agree with that approach but I think I made the Sun on the Cross conclusion☺ in retrospect I dont know what I was thinking.
    But certainly if one finds one thing wrong with a book or idea it certainly suggests the whole book or ifea is suspect.
    Certainly I level that approach at the bible in general...given it is easy to find things in it that are just not correct I am inclined to adopt the reject the lot approach.
    The vid I posted however is factual as to all it says as far as I can tell as far as the astronomy...and the link from an astrology approach would seem established given the many human gods who just happen to claim the same attributes that it is claimed makes the astrology link.

    What I do find very strange is no believers comment and I presume they will not even look...I think they exihibit what we call "the head in the sand approach" or somehow think if they dont look all the human gods and the fact that JC was just one of many running such a con will just go away.
    Our resident agnostic displays a head in the sand approach which is somewhat understandable because to take on board the human god repetitious con would mean all his study of history is just studying how a fake notion clung to western culture...that would be the way to look at it as far as I can tell.
    I have no problem realising that I have been wrong as I sincerely thank you ... I dont know what I was thinking ...I must set up the planitarium program again...certainly the cross is on the horizon at 30 degrees North but the Sun must be North of it...maybe I saw some relationship and I have got confused...interesting.
    You have not misunderstood.
    All I can think is I saw some other relationship and got carried away but I can only see that I was wrong.
    However dont blame the vid as I dont think they day that...In anyevent thanks for your input I certainly do appteciate you considering the matter rather than ignoring it as most others seem to choose.
    Alex
     

Share This Page