Best products from r/DebateAChristian

>If you can provide any biblical references to back up your claim to the divinity of Jesus, please do.

Actually, I didn't make any claim concerning the deity of Jesus, you did. Reading your last post I think what you meant was "I know I can't back up my claim to Jesus NOT being God but I don't want to admit it. I'll try to shift the burden of proof unto you instead".

If you can't provide any proof of your claim that Jesus isn't God then you shouldn't make that claim.

That being said let's break this down into easily digestible bits:

Jesus Shares the Honors Owed to God

The Son is to be honored just as we honor the Father (John 5:23). He is given glory in doxologies modeled on Old Testament doxologies to God (1 Peter 4:11; 2 Peter 3:18). He is the object of worship that is expressed in the words of Old Testament references to the worship of YHWH (Heb. 1:6) or in scenes in which all creation worships Christ alongside God in heaven itself (Rev. 5:8-14). He hears and answers prayers for salvation, for the safekeeping of one's spirit at the moment of death, and for other needs (John 14:14; Acts 7:59-60; Rom. 10: 12-13; 2 Cor. 12:8-9). Religious songs are sung in his honor (Eph. 5:19; Rev. 5:9-10). He is as much the object of religious faith as God is (John 14:1; Rom. 10:11). We are to fear or revere him (Eph. 5:21; 1 Peter 3:14-16), serve him (Dan. 7:14), and love him (John 14:15, 21; Eph. 6:24) as we do God.

Jesus Shares the Attributes of God

The New Testament also attributes characteristics to Christ that show him also to be something far greater than a human being; indeed, they show him to be God. The totality of what it means to be God is embodied in Jesus Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9). The Son is completely, perfectly like God the Father (John 14:9; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). He existed before all creation and is eternal, uncreated, and immutable (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12; 13:8). His moral character, in particular his love, is perfectly that of God (Rom. 8:35-39; Rev. 1:5). His omnipotence is implicit in his work of creation and providential sustaining of the universe (Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2-3), and that same power became incarnate, paradoxically humbled in weakness for our salvation (1 Cor. 1:23-24; 2 Cor. 12:9). He is omnipresent (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; Eph. 4:10-11) and even omniscient (John 16:30-31; Acts 1:24; Rev. 2:23), as someone who made the cosmos must be. Like God, he is beyond our comprehension (Matt. 11:27).

Jesus Shares the Names of God

The New Testament usually uses the name God with reference to the Father, but it also affirms several times that Christ is God (John 1:1,18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1). With astonishing frequency-far more often than even many scholars have noticed-Jesus is identified as the Lord (that is, YHWH) of the Old Testament (Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Peter 3:13-15). He is the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16), the divine Savior (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:11), the one who says "I am" or "I am he" (John 8:24, 28, 58), the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega, and the beginning and the end (Rev. 1:7-8, 17b-18; 2:8; 22:12-13). The New Testament repeatedly and in a variety of ways makes the name of Jesus the center of Christian faith; he has the name that is above every name (Eph. 1:2 1; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 3:17).

Jesus Shares in the Deeds That God Does

Jesus performs deeds that are the exclusive prerogative of God, or at least a wide range of them. On this basis, we are on firm ground in identifying Jesus as God. The heavens and the earth-which is to say, the universe-are his work (Heb. 1:10-12). Nothing came into being apart from him (John 1:3). All created things exist in, through, and for him (Col. 1:16). He sustains the universe (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:3). In his earthly ministry, he demonstrated divine sovereign control over the forces of nature (Matt. 8:23-27; 14:13-33). His word is the divine "word of the Lord" (Acts 8:25; 13:44,48-49). He forgives sins (Mark 2:1-12; Col. 3:13). He sends the Holy Spirit and imparts spiritual gifts (John 20:22; Acts 2:33; 1 Cor. 12:4-5; Eph. 4:8-11). He gives life to whomever he chooses (John 5:21,26). He judges all people, so that all may honor him as they honor the Father (John 5:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:10).

Jesus Shares the Seat of God's Throne

The New Testament teaching on this point is explicit. Jesus claimed that he would sit at God's right hand and exercise divine judgment a claim that the Jewish religious authorities recognized as a claim to deity (Mark 14:61-64). In this position, Jesus exercises authority over all things (Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:27-28). He is exalted far above everyone and everything in created existence, including all the angels in God's heavenly court (Eph. 1:21; 4:10; Phil. 2:9-10; Heb. 1:3-6). Jesus not only sits on God's throne, it is his throne, too (Rev. 22:1, 3). From this exalted position, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33), receives the spirit of a dying man (Acts 7:59), and receives universal worship (Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:8-14).

Any one of these five lines of evidence would be good support for belief in the deity of Christ is proclaimed in the Scriptures . All five lines of evidence, considered together, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible proclaims Jesus Christ is God.

If one doesn't want to research [even though they should] all of the above verses [which is not an exhaustive list] there are at least four passages in the New Testament in which all five of these lines of evidence converge in a single context: Matthew 28:16-20; John 1:1-18; Hebrews 1:1-13; Philippians 2:6-11.

Given all of that, the Bible overwhelmingly confirms that Jesus is God. source

The word translated "faith" is the Greek word pistis.

The word pistis bears a relationship to the word episteme, from which we get our word "Epistemology", which is the study of knowledge.

Pistis precedes episteme. Or as Graham Ward, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford since 2012, put it in his recent book "Unbelievable: Why we believe and why we don't":

>...the noun pistis is related to the noun episteme (understanding, scientific knowledge) -- the epi is a prefix meaning 'upon' -- and the verb epistamai (to know). All these verbal echoes disturb the sheer vertical ascension of the line. The names for the levels both refer back to previous levels and ahead to levels that will follow, blurring where the boundaries like. This suggests that true knowledge gathers together belief, reasoning and intelligence. It may even be that true knowledge emerges in focusing the illumination that flickers through the various levels. Either way, belief participates in intelligence. It is not erased as illusion, but endlessly clarified through more abstract cognitive processes. Picking up some of the other connotations of pistis that I mentioned earlier, we might say: we come to know that which we believe, trust, and are assured to be true. [emphasis added] Or even: we believe that we may understand -- which seems to be the way Augustine read the Platonic thought available to him in the fourth century CE.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way (Paragraphs 157-158):

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."^31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."^32

158 "Faith seeks understanding":^33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens "the eyes of your hearts"^34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God's plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. "The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood."^35 In the words of St. Augustine, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."^36

31 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,171,5,obj.3.
32 John Henry Cardinal Newman, Apologia pro vita sua (London: Longman, 1878) 239.
33 St. Anselm, Prosl. prooem.:PL 153,225A.
34 Eph 1:18.
35 DV 5.
36 St. Augustine, Sermo 43,7,9:PL 38,257-258.

Difficult questions are rather a help to faith, in that they compel the honest seeker ever deeper into the mysteries of God. As Frank Sheed put it in his book "Theology and Sanity", though we may never be able to grasp all the mysteries of the infinite with our finite intellects, we may yet be capable of increasing the area illuminated by the light we're able to shine. There will always be more beyond the spread of our light, but our light grows to encompass more and more (I'm paraphrasing--perhaps badly).

Anselm's motto was "faith seeking understanding".

>Faith for Anselm is more a volitional state than an epistemic state: it is love for God and a drive to act as God wills. In fact, Anselm describes the sort of faith that “merely believes what it ought to believe” as “dead” (M 78). (For the abbreviations used in references, see the Bibliography below.) So “faith seeking understanding” means something like “an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God.”

I'm sorry if all this doesn't really answer your question. I'd also recommend C.S. Lewis' essay "Obstinacy of Belief" (the full text can be found here, Chapter 11).

> How is Christianity considered a monotheist religion?

Ignoring the OP's reference to the Saints as potential Gods/Demigods, I will attempt to discuss the concept of the Christian Trinity where God (Yahweh) is one God but with three personalities.

It was important for early Christians to embrace and promote a monotheistic God for the same reason that Judaism went from a polytheistic pantheon to the monotheism of Yahwehism (YHWH) - by claiming a monotheism, the adherents were able to claim a superior God and imbue this deity with attributes in excess of other Gods (i.e., the one and only true God, multi-omni's).

The concept of the Christian Trinity (three persons distinct yet coexisting in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial; Father, Son [God made Flesh], Spirit), for many of the Christian sects, allows for assignment of different 'essences' - which in pre-monotheistic Yahwehism, would have been been assigned to different deities. There is no direct identification of the "Trinity" concept in the New Testament, rather the doctrine of the Trinity was contrived in the 2nd/3rd century by Christian apologistics using various scripture passages interpreted to establish the foundation of the Trinity concept.

Some references about this non-polythesitic concept is available:

• Trinity - wiki
  
• THE REVELATION OF GOD AS TRINITY - Holy See/Vatican
  
• The Trinity (Triunity) of God
  
  The triad concept is seen in many supernatural deity religions:
  
  
• Egyptian: Osiris, Isis, Horus
  
• Canaanite/Ugarit – Early Israelite: El the Father God, Asherah the Wife/Consort (depicted as a Serpent), Baal-Hadad
  
• Hindu Trimurti: Brahma - the Creator, Vishnu - the Maintainer, Shiva - the Destroyer
  
• Olympian Greek Religion: Zeus, Athena, Apollo
  
• Roman Capitoline Triad: Jupiter, Juno, Minerva
  
• Sumerian: Anu, Ea, Enlil
  
• Babylonian: Shamash, Ishtar, Tammuz
  
• Christianity: Yahweh, Holy Spirit, Jesus
  
  The early books of the Tanakh, specifically the Torah, deal with the earlier history of the beginning of Judaism and, like the related Old Testament of the Bible, contain many references which show the historical transition from a polytheistic belief in the El God pantheon to the monolatry of the (initially subordinate) rain/fertility/warrior God Yahweh incorporating many of the transferred attributes from the El pantheon, and from there to monotheistic worship where Yahweh took the supreme position.
  
  As Yahweh was accepted into the prominent religion of the region and incorporated into the pantheon of Gods headed by El, the Father and Creator God [there is reference in Ugarit documents to Yahweh also being one of the sons of El]; Yahweh came to be dominant to the Hebrew peoples of Israel (meaning: saved by the God El) through a process of convergence, differentiation and displacement (synthesis and syncretism) of the polytheistic triad of the most prominent Canaanite and Ugarit Gods - El (the father God), Asherah (goddess, wife or consort to El), and Baal (storm/rain God, son of El) - to the monolatry of the rain/fertility/warrior God Yahweh incorporating many of the transferred attributes from the El pantheon, and from there to monotheistic worship where Yahweh took the supreme position. Given that the Old Testament is essentially the story of Yahweh, and the humans that Yahweh created, as protagonists, the identification of God's (Yahweh's) created humans as the "chosen people" makes sense.
  
  References to El, Asherah (her icon/standard is the Serpent), Baal and other sons and daughters of El litter the Christian Old Testament. For example, Genesis 1, the universe and world creation story, refers to El and Family. Genesis 2 refers to a limited creation of humans and an Eden by Yahweh. Genesis 3 is the story of Yahweh withholding morality from his human playthings and the ascendent God Asherah corrected Yahweh's transgression (my interpretation of the allegorical story) against his creations (Yahweh was not happy and continued to throw temper tantrums for the next 1500 (or 700) years (depending on which date of the authorship of the early books of the OT you accept). Yahweh was a jealous God, as befitting a warrior god, and instructed his creations to put Yahweh first and foremost (Exodus 20, the first set of the verbal ten commandments) above the other Gods of the Israelites. Eventually the adherents of Yahweh were successful in transferring the attributes of the other Gods into Yahweh to create and enforce monotheistic Yahwehism. The derivative monotheistic Yahwehism is a creation by humans for humans - yet serves as the foundation of the Father God for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is interesting that Christianity incorporates a triad in the Trinity. The Father God, Yahweh; the mother/consort God, Holy Spirit, and the son God; Christ - analogous and corresponding to El, the Father God, Asherah, the consort/wife of El, and Baal, the son God; which predates Yahwehism and from which Yahwehism is derived.
  
  More online references with discussion the origin of the monotheistic God of Israel:
  
  
• Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel
  
• The Origins and Gradual Adoption of Monotheism Amongst the Ancient Israelites
  
• The evolution of God
  
• Ugarit and the Bible
  
  Other:
  
  
• The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel by Mark Smith
  
• The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith
  
• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong
  
• The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller
  
• Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches by Ziony Zevit
  
  
  TL;DR Christian apologistics constructed a 3-in-1 poly to monotheistic construct, using selected 'interpreted' Old and New Testament scriptures, in order to allow the claim of a superior monotheistic God having attributes usually assigned to a multiple or pantheon of Gods - resulting in the one true and only God.

>Christ didn’t really address hierarchy

Not true: "Jesus maligns those on top of the social hierarchy because he tends to think that the pursuit of prestige and wealth leads to a sort of idolatry that distracts us from the true good" (p. 116).

Jesus says we're not supposed to focus on accruing earthly treasures:

>Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal (Matthew 6:19-20).

\^ This is an indictment against those at the top of the social hierarchy, i.e. the people who own "treasures on earth."

Here's another criticism that only applies to those at the top of the social hierarchy:

>No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. (Matthew 6:24)

People at the bottom of the social hierarchy have little to no wealth, so this does not apply to them.

According to Jesus, people at the top of the social hierarchy will have a difficult time getting into the kingdom of heaven:

>“Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:23-24).

Jesus does not criticize people at the bottom of the social hierarchy (the poor) in such a manner:

>Pure Chrsitian altruism thus appears to run counter to the competitive and individualistic ethic of modern capitalism, where the presupposition is that we all do better when we develop the economy by competing with one another. Jesus, however, does not praise those who are successful in business. Instead, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus blesses the poor and the meek. These are not the winners in the struggle for survival; rather, Jesus turns his attention to the losers (p. 34)

So, you say:

>Slavery, in itself, is a discussion about the nature of hierarchy and class in a society.

And you claim Jesus never spoke on about "hierarchy and class in a society." But as I've shown, that's wrong. When you spend much of your time criticizing the rich for their wealth and honouring the poor, you're talking about "hierarchy and class in a society."

Jesus repeatedly condemned the rich (i.e. upper-class people at the top of the social hierarchy) for being rich. He advised them to sell their stuff and give their money to the poor (i.e. lower-class people at the bottom of the social hierarchy). According to Jesus: Blessed are the poor, not the rich.

Jesus recognized the rich vs. poor social justice issue. He condemned the rich. And, significantly, he actually ordered the rich to sell their stuff and give their money to the poor in an effort to correct the rich vs. poor social justice issue.

Jesus did not recognize the master vs. slave social justice issue, even though the Essenes did. Jesus never condemned masters. He never orders masters to grant freedom to their slaves. He makes no effort to correct the master vs. slave social justice issue.

He chastises the rich for owning stuff, but he never criticizes them for owning people. He tells the rich to get rid of their stuff, but he never tells them to free their slaves.

If we're going to get into the Bible as the source for a description of god, then we certainly have an issue. Which Bible are you reading? If its one of the millions of Bibles in the US, then its likely an English translation, and it isn't actually describing the god worshiped by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For that, we have to go back to the Canaanite religion, which we've learned about from clay tablets found at the Ras Shamra site. The Canaanites were polytheists who worshiped a great number of gods. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were primarily followers of El Shaddai, "God of the Mountains", another name for El Elyon, or "God Most High". El Elyon appears to Abraham in human form at one point. Jacob is described as asking El Elyon to become his elohim, or primary god, in order that he might receive special protection. He also climbs a ladder to heaven and speaks with El Elyon in person, and later even wrestles with El Elyon.

Its also not the god of Moses. Moses was a follower of Yahweh, the war god of the ancient Israelites. Yahweh wasn't a Canaanite god, but he also wasn't a monotheistic god. In the (likely mythical) story of Exodus, the Israelites even note after gaining their freedom "Who among the gods
is like you, Yahweh?
Who is like you—
majestic in holiness,
awesome in glory,
working wonders?." (Exodus 15:11) It helps the verses make more sense to get the full context; upon reaching the promised land, the Israelites stray and worship other gods. That seems silly in today's version; why worship Baal or Asherah when you know that there is only THE LORD? But when you realize that Yahweh was just the war god, as Ares was to the Greeks, it makes more sense. Once you're no longer in a time of trouble, why not worship Baal (god of fertility and storms) or Asherah (the mother goddess) instead of Yahweh (god of the armies)? And its a lot more obvious why the Old Testament god was so obsessed with blood and death; he was the war god, like Ares.

Yahweh didn't become the primary god of Israel until the reign of King Josaih, a strict Yahwist, in about 640 BCE. This was the period of the Deuteronomic reforms; it was at this time that the book of Deuteronomy was "found" in the temple, supposedly a new book of law written by Moses that placed Yahweh above all other gods. However, its rather convenient timing and the linguistic signature indicate that it was actually a forgery, created for political expediency. Even here, though, there is still evidence of polytheism, in the Ten Commandments themselves. "6 I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 7 You shall have no other gods before me." (Deuteronomy 5:6-7)

Only in about 570 BCE, when the Israelites were exiled into Babylon, did the monotheistic god "the LORD" appear. An author known as Second Isaiah had his words appended on to the original Isaiah, the book of Leviticus was authored, and the history of Israel was rewritten to say that El Elyon and Yahweh were the same god, and that this god was the only god. The other books extant at the time were rewritten to make it look like there had only ever been one god of Israel. So despite the story saying that this god has always existed, he only appears in the archaeological record 2600 years ago.

A very different picture appears when you know where all the stories came from, and put them in their proper historical context. The Old Testament just screams polytheism, even through the multiple rewrites and translations. I recommend A History of God by Karen Armstrong for more details. Or, you can find a good summary on YouTube from Evid3nc3.

I agree with both points.

I don't believe Adam and Eve were the only ones. Recent writings by Dr. John Walton (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520516984&sr=8-1&keywords=the+lost+world+of+genesis+one+by+john+walton&dpID=41GOJy03JKL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch) proposes a theory about Genesis 1-2 that I love. It says that the text is about how the cosmos functions, not about how it came to be. Light and dark function to give us time, the firmament functions to give us weather and climate, the dry land functions to bring for plant life (the function of agriculture), the sun moon and stars function to give us times and seasons, humanity functions to fill the earth and subdue, to rule over the earth. It's about why the earth was created (to cosmos was to function as God's temple, his dwelling place, and the earth to function as the place of meeting and relationship between God and the people he created and loves), not about how it was created, what processes were used, or how long it took. According to the Bible, God is still definitely the creator of the world, but that's not what Genesis 1-2 are about. Genesis 1-2 are about how God ordered the world so that it functions the way it does.

Taking Genesis 2 in this light, it is not about the material creation of Adam and Eve, but rather about what their function is. In Genesis 2.15, for instance, the words "work it" and "take care of it" are not agricultural words, but priestly ones. Adam and Eve weren't gardeners, but priest and priestess. They were taken out from among other hominids (also Gn. 2.15), invested with God's breath (they became souls), and were given the role and function of mediating between God and men, and for God to reveal himself to them. This became the line of homo sapiens that exists today.

So it's altogether possible (if Walton is right) that Adam and Eve were not necessarily the first humans nor necessarily the only humans. Walton also wrote a book called "The Lost World of Adam & Eve" if you are truly interested in doing some fascinating reading.

> the land of Nod

The identification of Nod is technically undermined—we can't be certain of it. More to say about that after Eden.

The identification of Eden is most likely in Kuwait or Iran. Satellite photos and geological studies have found evidences of two other dried up rivers in the region, along with evidences of ancient grasslands, lakes, and forests. Kuwait, at the mouth of the Kuwait River, is rife with pebbles, which is a clue that river used to be there. Research reveals that a river used to flow across the Arabian peninsula, possibly what the Bible calls the Pishon. The gold, bdellium, and onyx that the Bible mentions are in the general region of Mahd edh-Dhahab in Saudi Arabia.

Nod is defined in Gn. 4.16 (correcting your reference of 3.16) as "east of Eden," as you say. By the way, the Mesopotamian flood hero, Utnapishtim, (in the Gilgamesh Epic) is similarly located "faraway, at the mouth of the rivers," east of the head of the Persian Gulf. If our identifications of Eden are correct, Nod is in present-day Iran.

The point of my comparison was: It seems unstructured to me. And I am often confused by that lack of rules moderates live by.

I constantly meet people who consider themselves Christian or Muslim or whatever but do not follow the rules of that religion. For instance a good friend of mine who is a Catholic, like many american's, believes the sacrament is symbolically the body and blood of Christ and also uses contraception. These are big no-nos for a Catholic. Another friend is Muslim and he loves bacon and also uses contraception and does not believe his daughter should grow up thinking herself less than a male.

Essentially, these types of people make up the bulk of religious people I meet. So maybe they are a good %age of the religious in america. But effectively they are not religious. They simply believe in a god and pick the rules they want to follow based on a number of different criteria. Those criteria are almost always cultural.

This seems like sentimental (in the philosophical sense) religion to me. Why not drop the religion altogether?

EDIT: have you read this book? http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347757261&sr=8-1&keywords=misquoting+jesus

> Just to be clear, naturalistic pantheism would be the belief that...

This.

> Would you like to help me here?

It would be my pleasure. That was a very admirable statement btw. I started this fkr the same reason, though it was more motivated by finding the truth as early as I can so I can live the rest of my life properly. So the biggest areas of interest there are philosophy of religion and ethics.

I was first convinced by what is called the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. Here's a great paper on it. You can do some research, but its one of the arguments from contingency that atheists can't write off as easily as other cosmological arguments like the Kalam, as the universe is contingent even if it existed for eternity. If the piano music is coming out of the saloon for eternity, there still needs to be a piano player.

There are a few other arguments that I accept. I'm sure you've heard of Thomas Aquinas' Four Ways and it looks like they don't conince you as of now. Some of them look a little silly and easy to dismiss, but that's because the popular formulationa that atheists have been shooting down are summaroes of Aquinas' full arguments that require knowlesge kf the rest of his metaphysics. I highly highly reccomend this book. I still think the Fourth Way is bunk (but I've heard I need to learn about Neoplatoniam to understand it), and as Feser is a Catholic he has some points where he argues for the immorality of abortion or libertarian free will that you and I would disagree with, but it is overall a definitive case for the Five Ways and the rest of our metaphysics. He weighs all the objections from philosophers like Hume.

So there's that. My favorite is the Argument from Motion. If you want to discuss any of this then you can PM me or Jaeil, who I still bug from time to time about theology. He's the authority around here on Leibniz and Aquinas. Hope that helped!

I am not discriminating against Christians by describing what the followers do. I am not denying them services, freedoms, or liberties. If I tried to do that, it would deny the liberties that I enjoy as well. There are major Christian organizations (AFA, AIG, FocusOnTheFamily, LivingWaters, Pat Robertson, etc...) that are perfect examples of what I'm describing. Yes it's obvious that not all Christians do this but I am upset by those that do because they believe it's in Yahweh's best interests.

Anthropologists and archaeologists generally believe the Israelites were once part of the Canaanites and often continued sharing culture and beliefs. There is a lot written on the subject in ancient anthropology in books that can present the findings better than me. I had assumed you already had heard about where Yahweh likely originated, just like the borrowed Sumerian & Babylonian flood and creation myths in the Bible, [Yahweh in the bible also has origins elsewhere.] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33hIs38-NPE) There are resources explaining the [deities of Canaan and their origins.] (http://amzn.com/080283972X) These might be a little more advanced for armchair anthropologists, but they are informative.

>Wikipedia does not seem to agree with your authoritative stance on these issues.

When wikipedia becomes the goto for scholarship, let me know.

>Why wouldn't you mention this evidence, or give the sources about it?

Because the evidence is in entire books that you have to read through in order to understand it. Look into the authorship of the gospels and the research that various scholars have done... a lot of it is available online, I am sure, but I am not interested in doing the research for you. There are all sorts of things in the gospels that raise huge red flags as to who actually wrote them, like geographical errors, the fact that Jesus and his disciples spoke aramaic and not greek, errors in jewish custom, etc.

>Many first hand accounts are not written in the first person, and many first hand account include parts that the author was not present, but was informed about later. You are jumping to conclusion in the extreme.

I'm jumping to conclusions? You have a piece of writing that is completely anonymous. It doesn't claim to be an eye witness account. It has numerous scenes that could not have been witnessed by anyone, and numerous other scenes that when considered together make it obvious that no one person could have been the source. That doesn't even take into account the other research I am talking about. Even based on just this, the most obvious conclusion is that it was not written by an eye witness. There is literally no evidence that points to that conclusion. Yet you say I am the one jumping to conclusions? Right.

>A few, but one of the main reasons many weren't added, was because they doubted the authorship. It's good to know that they were vetting out the letters for authenticity, even in the very early church, wasn't it?

Actually there were dozens. And the way they determined if something was authentic was basically whether the writings matched their current beliefs or not. For example, at the council of Nicea, any gospels that portrayed Jesus as being more divine than human were left out. It wasn't about determining which document had the most credibility. They didn't have forensic investigatory methods to determine that stuff. It was almost exclusively about whether the document was heretic or not. The only reason that the gospels even have the names they do is because Papias gave them those names to make them more credible (things were seen as more credible if they had an apostle's name on it... such was the state of their credibility checks). The claim at that time was that Mark was a follower of Peter, not Jesus, and that he was not an eyewitness. Iraneus was the first to suggest that more than one gospel should be followed... before him, it would have been very unusual to follow the teachings of more than one.

>To say that the apostle John did not write John, simply because it was not written in the first person, and he probably didn't see absolutely everything he wrote about personally, is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, but we know with almost absolute certainty that none of the disciples wrote John. The vast majority of modern scholars believe (and teach in schools all across the world) that John was written later having been passed orally to different communities.

Here is a book by Christian scholar Richard Bauckham that tries to make the case that the gospels are based on eye witness testimony.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1295405950&sr=8-3

In fact, he only asserts that a single one of the Gospels was written direct by an eyewitness: the Gospel of John. However, he does not think he was a disciple, but instead just an unnamed follower. Credibility kind of goes out the window when you've narrowed it down to "an unnamed follower." As I said, he doesn't actually argue that the other three gospels are based on first or even second hand eye witness testimony, and he admits that most scholars won't agree with his view on John.

I can assure you that this is taught in seminaries around the world, and is accepted by scholars all over the world, christian or not.

I don't think these things can be asserted so confidently as what "we know" from the research of modern historians. It is true that there are many historians who see the gospels as deriving mainly from oral traditions several decades removed from the original events (not as legends, which is the view Lewis is attacking), many excellent historians who do think the gospel authors were or spoke with eyewitnesses, like Richard Bauckham, who makes the case in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that the synoptics all derive closely from the testimony of both major and minor eyewitnesses, and that the author of the Gospel of John was himself an eyewitness. Lewis' assessment of the gospels as history, which he sees as falling within his own professional expertise ("I have read a great deal of legend" doesn't just refer to how he liked to spend his free time), remains perfectly defensible today. In fact, the 20th Century largely saw a move in biblical studies away from the hyper-critical views of the late 19th Century.

Let's stick to the firmament for a bit. Your authors are quite wrong on a number of counts.

Here's the definition of the Hebrew word from my condensed copy of BDB, considered the definitive Hebrew lexicon:

רָקִיעַ n.m. extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out) — firmamentum

1. (flat) expanse (as if of ice), as base, support.
   
2. the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.
   
   First, there's a few places in the Bible where the firmament is shown as clearly solid:
   
   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2037:18;%20Job%2022:14&version=HCSB
   
   (Note the verb translated "spread out" is the verb form of the word translated as firmament. In every use in the OT it means to beat out a solid thing. Here's two other uses of the verb form.)
   
   A bunch of guys got to go up there and see God on top of the firmament:
   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2024:9-10&version=HCSB
   
   Also Ezekiel's vision clearly shows his views of the solid dome God lives above:
   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%201:22-25;%2010:1-2&version=HCSB
   
   At minimum this makes the claim that they didn't know of this cosmology seem silly. The same is true of the claim that it wasn't a common cosmology. We have good evidence for the summerian and canaanite and other groups.
   
   One of your other sources claims the Bible has birds fly in the firmament. That's not true, and it doesn't read that way in any modern translation, only those derived from the KJV. The verse in Genesis literally says "flies in front of the face of the firmament of the heavens". The word face is also used for the surface of the earth and other solid things, and a better translation is really "flies in front of the surface of the firmament of the heavens."
   
   
   Consider also where the fire comes from to burn up Elijah's offering, where the chariot of fire goes up to, Jacob's ladder, etc.
   
   There's tons more evidence, and if you want a book by a conservative Christian scholar on the issue, check out this one.
   
   He also wrote The Lost World of Genesis One where he deals with how he thinks this information should be used to change our understanding of the goal of the writers of Genesis. An essay version of the main points of his book is here.

>Since you seem to be the "Keeper Of All Things Aquinas" around here

The man has many fans, including atheists. Anthony Kenny and Mortimer Adler are both famous non-theists who nonetheless considered themselves Thomists. Ed Feser tells the story of his professor who was a militant atheist, but who readily acknowledged the brilliance of Aquinas, especially in light of the shittiness of modern Christian apologists.

Truly, if you love to hate Lee Strobel and other modern pop apologists, Aquinas will help you hate them even more.

>I would appreciate a recommendation for further reading.

This is the book to read. Don't touch the Summa raw. Without knowing the background assumptions, you'll read incorrect sensibilities into it that Aquinas never intended.

>I remember that you posted some videos a while back

Here. But they could be better, and I want to learn Flash and start from scratch. I don't think I explained things well enough.

> Do you agree that some metaphysics are better than others? That metaphysics can become outdated?

Some can be better than others, but that has nothing to do with their age. By definition, metaphysics doesn't make empirical claims(that is regular physics).

> if the total sum of the universe in terms of energy (matter cancelled by antimatter, heat + energy countered by gravity, etc) is zero.

Potential isn't conservation of energy, momentum, nor the increase in entropy(I did mechanical engineering in school). The division of matter and antimatter could have not happened or have happened differently. That is potential.

> Why do you use the word "decide" here?

Neil deGrasse Tyson used it too when he talked about nothing.

> This is not yet proven, but one day we may be able to say with almost absolute certainty that causality does not follow classical laws at the quantum level.

Causality along the time axis is only one such route of causes. In going from nothing to the universe, time itself must be caused much like the three spatial dimensions and the matter/energy they are causally tied to. We say God is timeless, not was or will be.

> would you like to quickly give me a short overview of A-T philosophy?

There are four causes to consider to really understand something. First, there are efficient causes, the way a thing got the way it is. This is what empirical science does the best with.

There is the final cause, the thing the object is directed or ordered toward. A seed is directed toward becoming an adult plant, the final cause of the reproductive system is to reproduce, etc. Dawkins waged a silly war on it.

Next, is the formal cause which is it's orientation, resolution of the degrees of freedom it possesses. Is a switch on or off. Finally, there is material cause. What a thing is made of.

As far as I can tell, the final cause is the biggest difference. A-T metaphysics can tell what a thing is supposed to do rather than just what it is or what would happen if certain things are done. So a Descartes type philosophy that denies final cause would only say a person has a certain germ and a certain drug will kill that germ, but can't say it's an illness. Really, words like disorder and medicine(restoration to it's ordered state) only really make sense in this kind of metaphysical system.

I don't know if I'm conveying it to you, but really, you need a book.

Reported? For what? Baffling...

A Universe from Nothing

>One of the few prominent scientists today to have crossed the chasm between science and popular culture, Krauss describes the staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories that demonstrate not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing.

Of course, that's nonsense and he's been taken to task for his definition of "nothing" – but, yeah, he thinks "the Big Bang started from literally nothing..."

I'm honestly baffled why citing a scientist who premiumsalad claims doesn't exist is a problem for this sub. But, yeah, this will certainly be my last post here. Cheers.

> Many of these 'proofs' you mention are just oft repeated statements.

No, many of these "proofs" are agreed upon consensus from historians and biblical scholars. No offense but I'll take their word over some random guy/woman that IDK from the internet.

> I can find no references from historians or peer reviewed articles that support this view among new testament historians.

Really? Go read up on it. https://ehrmanblog.org/do-most-manuscripts-have-the-original-text/

>The manuscripts used to translate the ESV or the HCSB are wonderful translations directly from the earliest manuscripts. I honestly do not see any strange inconsistencies with the new testament.

Well, given that I've just recently finished up reading the ESV bible, I cannot understand how anyone, who's actually bothered to read the entire bible, can say that.

> The earliest manuscripts of Mark were written 7 years after the events of the gospel and I believe the parts that were in later manuscripts are true as well.

Again, not so. The consensus is that it was written ~30-40 yrs after Jesus's death.

http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossroads/resources/birthofjesus/intro/the_dating_of_thegospels.html

>The thing we must all wonder is why? Why would these men die for something that they knew wasn't true.

This is a fallacy. Men will die for what they BELIEVE is true but that doesn't mean it is true. Happens all the time. 9/11 hijackers and Heavens Gate are two prominent examples. Just cause someone believes it true doesn't make it so. I use to believe Santa Clause was true. I had good reason to think so. Such as the yr we went away before Christmas only to come home and find presents under the tree. Even got into a fist fight over the whole "is Santa real?" discussion in grade school. Of course, it was later reveal that my parents had us simply wait in the car while they went back in the house to get something they "forgot". But I sure did BELIEVE that Santa was real.

>We have excellent historical accounts of these martyrs deaths and many many thousands more.

Again, not really. Only church tradition that I'm aware of. No contemporary accounts. If I recall correctly, the bible doesn't discuss their deaths either. But even if we did, that still doesn't prove their claims. And as far as "thousands" of martyrs, probably only in that it feed early christian's fetish for wanting to be like Jesus. There's actually no real evidence that there was this centuries long campaign to persecute christians. Hell, there is actual evidence that chrisitans DEMANDED to be persecuted. In one case, a group of christians went up to a Roman official demanding to be crucified only for him to basically say: LOL! Go home, you're drunk. There was another group (name escapes me) that would go on raids just hoping to be killed for Jesus. Very ISIS like. read up on by NT scholar Candida Moss.

> If you could get passed that you still can't explain the insanely fast spread of christianity from 12 men to millions in a few hundred years. No religion has seen such growth in so short a time.

Yea....'bout that...Doesn't seem to the the case. Islam spread far more quickly and rapidly than christianity did upon it's inception. And remember, christianity didn't necessarily spread out because of it's message but because of the sword. The Inquisitions, Crusades, Manifest Destiny, Salam witch hunts, etc. In some countries, like Ireland, it's still a crime to blaspheme Christianity. I think it was Seth Myers who was recently looking at 2 yrs in jail over there for that "crime". Hell, there was a kid just about 3 yrs ago that was basically brought up on blaspheme charges in Pennsylvania and sentenced for portraying himself receiving a BJ from a Jesus statue.

>My theory is that christianity especially in its earliest execution worked. It just worked. The miracles, the Holy spirit confirming, the whole thing worked, and people could see it for themselves.

I'll make you the same offer I make every christian who proclaims this. This is what Jesus allegedly said: He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.” Matt 17:20 (ESV)

If I see you walk outside and command a mountain to move in Jesus's name and it magically lifts up and flies off, I will give away everything I own to your church, done sackcloth and cover myself in ash. I will then go proclaim Jesus to the world myself.

To date, I've not had any takers but I sure have had a lot of apologetics and excuses given.

>Atheism requires far far more blind faith to believe than christianity.

No...No....that's not what it is. It's simply a rejection of your position that there is a god. Hell, you're an atheist for every god out there but one. I just happen to be an atheist for all the gods.

>Atheism is a religion, one that believes in chance.

No, again that's not what being an atheist is. I don't worship anyone/thing. There's no dogman associated with being an atheist. No religious text or rituals.

>Do the math. Do you know the odds of a universe coming into existance out of nothing? It's zero. Out of nothing, nothing comes.

How did you determine this? How did you determine that the universe came out of "nothing"? Because, to my knowledge, no-one knows that answer. But the fact is that a universe can come out of "nothing" but "nothing" isn't what you think it is. Yea, it's complicated. I've listened to the book a
few times on Audible and I think I have a grasp of it. But it's a pretty bold statement you're making there and I'll challenge you to tell me how you know what the initial conditions were at that time. It's the same reason I disagree with Stephen Hawkings reasoning on why he doesn't believe in a god. In short, time began when the universe did so therefore, there was no time for a god to exist in. Now I don't pretend to be on his level of intellegence but I would LOVE to sit down and discuss it with him and I would ask him the same I'm asking you: How do you know?

That aside, improbable things happen all the time. For example, what do you think is the probability of a specific leaf falling off a tree on a trail out in the middle of the woods in central Russia and hitting me in the face on Oct 12th, 2032 at 2:34:43PM? I would argue that the probability is so low as to be zero. You surely wouldn't make a bet of it I'm sure. However, it CAN happen, correct?

>The chicken very obviously must have come before the egg.

Nope, the egg came long before the chicken ever evolved. Dinosaurs laid them. We even have some fossilized dino eggs.

>Causes do not come from effects.

Ok. So what caused your god to come into being?

Well as I understand it there are a number of different kinds of multiverses that can exist. The one with the strongest evidence comes out of understanding of the inflation theory which is the currently widely accepted theory that fits with our observations. Inflation caused our universe to expand very rapidly shortly after its creation. After a short while that inflation stopped and created the universe that we see today.

However that stopping of inflation did not happen everywhere. We just happen to exit in a place where it did stop. Our pocket of reality exists in a still expanding...well I have no idea what that is, but whatever it is it is still expanding faster than the speed of light. From time to time other parts of the expanding...umm thing... will stop expanding and another universe will pop out. The point is that all these universes would be moving away from each other faster than the speed of light so there is no way they could interact with one another.

All of that comes as a natural consequence of our current theories of inflation which have substantial evidence to back them up. They are not proven, but they are our best current understanding. Other theories of multiuniverses come from string theory which I believe strive to be internally consistent but aren't backed by any physical evidence or observations.

Edit: I only know this because I just got done reading A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. I'm an atheist but the book is too preachy for my taste. It's author Lawrence M. Krauss says the book came about from debates with theist and it shows. I wish it had stuck with the straight physics instead of diverging from time to time into discussions like would be found on this subreddit. Still, if you want to know more I'd suggest picking it up.

Glad I could offer some perspective. I think a key factor in Old Earth interpretation is that one need not choose between accepting Genesis the way it's written and accepting scientific evidence. Old Earth Creationism is 100% accurate to genesis.

If it's a topic you like learning about (even if you ultimately decide that Young Earth is the better interpretation) this book is a good one to look for in the local library (or buy it, it's fairly cheap).

These type of "objections" have been raised a dime a dozen and frankly its getting boring dealing with them. However, I'm in a good mood so lets go. Before I start, I'm a doctor so when I read "the oldest of those dying the painful death of having their teeth rot out of their skull" I just had to ask, what the heck is that????

Ok moving on. Dealing with Genesis, we have to deal with the Hermeneutics of the book itself. It can be said that the book is written in a poetry style and was meant not to educate people about the way the universe formed, but rather to demonstrate that Yahweh was above all that they had worshipped as Gods (sun, moon, stars). If you are into reading, John Lennox's Seven Days that Divide the world could help shed some light on how Christians view Genesis. Not every Christian is Ken Ham in the same way that not every atheist is Josef Stalin.

Before I move on to the next part of your rant, I would like to ask. You mentioned "Heaven, completely capable of intervening, watches this with total indifference." Why does this bother you?

Sauces...Ah, can I just refer you to a book?

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham

Jesus was a very common name indeed. That's why you often see disambiguation when Jesus' name is referred to in conversation but not in narrative (because which other Jesus would they be talking about?):

> Matthew 21:6--The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them.
>
> Matthew 21:11--And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”
>
> Matthew 21:12--And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons.

And then a few chapters later:

> Matthew 26:64--Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
>
> Matthew 26:69--Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came up to him and said, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.”
>
> Matthew 26:71--And when he went out to the entrance, another servant girl saw him, and she said to the bystanders, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
>
> Matthew 26:75--And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.

But that one is supposed to be easy, because Jesus was a fairly common name (6th most popular in Palestine among Jews). However, outside of Palestine, Jesus was not a common name at all. So would someone outside of Palestine 150 or so years later know to do this kind of disambiguation if they were making up this story? Possibly, but it's unlikely.

The name of John the Baptist is also disambiguated in John 14 in much the same way.

I mention this because if the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts, they use person names very convincingly. The apocryphal gospels, on the other hand, use names in very wacky ways, for example, the Gospel of Thomas's main character is a dude named Didymos Judas Thomas, which means Twin Judas Twin, and no one used names that way back then.

What's also interesting is that in the NT Gospels (early to mid 1st century, except for John which was written probably later 1st century), Jesus is called Jesus. In the Gospel of Philip (mid 2nd century), he's still called Jesus, but he is mostly referred to as "Christ". And then in the Gospels of Peter (late 2nd century) and Mary (late 2nd century), the name "Jesus" isn't even present. Instead you have mainly "Lord" and "Savior".

So yeah, someone in the 2nd century probably had no idea what were the common names in the 1st century among Jewish Palestinians. But the gospels, which were supposedly written so late, gets those kinds of names right. Without the internet.

Perhaps this is not a debate point, but if you're really interested, you should check a book by John Lennox called Seven Days that Divide The World. I think it has some very strong claims that address your claims. There are some lectures of his on Youtube on his book, as well. I'll come back and answer you later today!

Holy shit, dude. That sounds like the exact opposite of fun. If they've got something important to say, then summarize it here.

Just for fun, why don't you read Misquoting Jesus or The History of God, if you're not afraid to expose yourself to some scholarship that will challenge your most cherished illusions.

Two thoughts. First, if you are interested in a scholarly work that refutes Ehrman et al, here is one you can check out.

Second, "what is true"?

A painting [generally] isn't photorealistic. It has all sorts of things that aren't accurate in it. In some senses, it isn't "true." But the difference between it and reality also serve a function. Because of these differences, the artist is able to communicate a message. The artist didn't make something photorealistic because he wasn't trying to. Instead, he was trying to communicate something.

Ancient biographers approached their work in much the same way. They were completely uninterested in doing modern biography, where you lay aside all bias and present the facts in precise chronological order. They felt free to play around with details (especially of chronology and geography, and especially by mixing and matching different speeches) to present a picture that they thought most accurately painted the life, personality, and core teachings of their subject. In some ways they treated biography more like literature than journalism. So when you ask "what time precisely did Jesus die [or what order did he call the disciples, or did he clear the temple at the beginning or end of his ministry, etc...]" my answer is:

The Gospel authors weren't concerned with communicating that. So I'm not going to evaluate them the way I evaluate modern biography. I will evaluate whether or not they were accurate in the things they were trying to be accurate in. But those weren't details like chronology and geography.

>Capitalism claims that it is up to the poor to free themselves from poverty, and that direct handouts to the poor do not work because they do not help the poor to develop the virtues that are necessary for success in the capitalist system. Indeed, welfare assistance can serve further to undermine the self-esteem of the poor both by focusing attention on their failures and by making them dependent on those who give the assistance. Communism, in opposition to this, holds that what is needed is a revolution of the free-market system that will allow for the communal ownership of social property and an equal distribution of social wealth. Here, the solution is to create a system in which basic human needs are fulfilled. As Marx put it: "To each according to his needs." The difficulty of this proposal, according to capitalism, is that it creates dependence and undermines self-esteem. And such a system would also undermine productivity by creating disincentives for innovation and hard work. According to the capitalism critique, a communist organization of society would create greater and more pervasive poverty in the long run.
>
>There are clearly complex issues to be considered in thinking about poverty. But Jesus' answer is lacking in complexity. His solution is simple: give to the poor. In Luke (6:30-31), Jesus says: "Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." This ideal of pure Christian altruism thus appears to reward theft. And it runs counter to the competitive and individualistic ethic of modern capitalism grounded in the idea of private property. A capitalist would wonder how Jesus proposes to get people to work for a living, if begging and thievery are allowed. But Jesus is not concerned with the question of work. He himself never works. Nor does he advocate learning a trade and earning a living. In fact, in the famous "lilies of the field" passage (Matthew 6:25), Jesus tells us not to worry about work because God will provide. Jesus explicitly tells his followers not to worry about where food, drink, and clothing will come from: "Seek first righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well" (Matthew 6:33). And this is why Jesus also tells his followers to sell all they own and give alms to the poor (Luke 12:33; Matthew 19:21): the poor would be sustained by such donations. But Jesus does not explain how this whole system is supposed to function if everyone follows his advice and no one is left worrying about how to produce food, drink, and clothing. (What Would Jesus Really Do?, pp. 120-121)

If you actually take a critical look at what Jesus taught, it's obvious that Jesus was the furthest thing from a capitalist.

>The intellectual knowledge of God is completely reliant on faith.

Er, no-- faith is emotional or revelatory knowledge of God. Intellectual knowledge of God comes from rational argumentation-- philosophy and theology, basically (Thomism, Neoplatonism, etc.)

>What incontrovertible evidence do we have that God exists?

I'm not sure what you mean by incontrovertible but there is evidence in many of these arguments' premises. I would start with a list of arguments for the existence of God. I'm partial to Thomas Aquinas and his philosophy (Summa contra Gentiles, Summa Theologica, and On Being and Essence) expounded on and explained by philosophers like Edward Feser. If you're interested in actually examining the evidence, look into them-- don't simply write them off at first, or examine them through the lens of a critic.

There's a list here, although I find some of them, naturally, faulty.

> Evolution does not necessarily predict useless organs (although some do exist that are nearly so)

Yes it did. It seems you aren't well versed in the history of your theory. Like I said earlier, the evidence of this mistake is found in all the missing appendixes from surgeries not dealing with the appendix at all. If you really want me to I can find biology books that define vestigial as useless. That's neither here nor there. Why neo-darwin evolution is harmful because it first assumes things are left over evolutionary artifacts when it first appears so. It takes convincing to think otherwise. This train of thought has not only been consistently wrong, but also very harmful.

> If this is the case, then this is a rather poor example of falsifiability.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't have a phd in the philosophy of science. Therefore I'm going to point you to an authority on the matter.

Dr. Bradley Monton wrote a book on this subject Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design

> Can you elaborate on the first bit about distinguishing living from non-living?

ID infers design by detecting CSI. From the FAQ: Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [ L.E. Orgel, 1973. The Origins of Life. New York: John Wiley, p. 189. Emphases added.]

> Can you point out any single adjustment ID has undergone based on observations?

Why does an adjustment need to be made? There is room for adjustments, for example we may need to refine the algorithm we use to calculate CSI. Just because one may or may not have happened is inconsequential.

> As far as I can tell, front loading is an absolutely unproven hypothesis that in no way refines previous theory.

It's progressive.I thought that's what you asked for?

> If ID were open to experimental checking, then it would have admitted to being incorrect a long time ago. Whether by the fossil record that clearly shows numerous transitional species

First of all, ID is not incompatible with common descent. You mis-understand these very simple things because you, like most are unfamiliar with ID. Good news is it's in the FAQ which you and everyone else pretty much refuses to read. ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.

Aside from that, if we went from bacteria, plankton, and algae to trilobite and brachiopods then new body plans and organs would have had to been created. These transitions should be evident in the fossil record. The darwinian model of evolution requires small and gradual changes thus demands an abundance of transitional forms between species. Yet the fossil record remains silent on this, rather than an abundance we have a dearth. The fossil record shows what happened -- an abrupt appearance of distinct and novel body plans. This supports the notion that quantum level programming was behind it all. Also classifying the so called transitional fossils may say more about our classification system than it does about any apparent lineage.

> or by vestigial traits such as the detached, minuscule, and useless leg bones found in many species of whales

Again, an evolution of the gaps type argument. Just like cave dwelling fish, there is most likely DNA in whales that's waiting to be turned back on when selection demands it. Vestigial? Maybe so, but probably only temporarily.

> This is a pretty weak assertion. By contrast, it is easy to point to internal leaked documents that show the outright religious objective of groups like the Discovery Institute, as well as the simple cut/paste manner in which certain ID documents were lifted from creationist texts.

ID and Creationism share some things in common, no doubt. They both start with the premise of a designer. However, where they branch off is ID doesn't base it's science off the bible but empirical evidence. It doesn't try to fit the bible into what it observes. This is evident by concepts such as front loading.

Sure! A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Fascinating book.

http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563

>So then according to early israelite/canaanite belief, yahweh and satan were brothers?(as they are boths sons of el and asharia)

It's possible, but we don't really have any manuscript support for that notion. We do know that Satan appears in later Israelite religion as one of the sons of elohim. Some scholars suggest that the Canaanite god shachar may have been the equivalent of Satan, but other scholars dispute that.

I would recommend the Early History of God for context on ancient Israelite mythology.

>Single point... a very hot and dense... already existing... single point... which rapidly expanded (the expansion being the Big Bang).

Ahh gotcha, so this is what you're talking about asking for proof the universe began.

Then I'd recommend the following further reading:

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss
The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking
The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth

>Universe was not created per evidence.

There's a high level primer here.

Yep, I recommend misquoting jesus. It talks in depth about the translation issues in the Bible.

https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512

There's a book that I believe does a decent job of tackling this subject. In it, the author addresses the order of creation, the meaning of 'days', as well as many other topics.

He's also written another book that tackles the silly notion that science and faith cannot coexist.

I know this is not really conducive to debate, but I thought it pertinent to bring these books to everyone's attention.

>I'm in no way saying that it is wrong because I do not know and in fact Hawking does not know if that is reality.

Actually this is just math. We do know that universes can create themselves, and we do know that with an infinite number of trials
every possibility will occur an infinite number of times.

Your "contingency" argument can be dismissed out of hand. That's just First Cause in new fish wrap. Prove the universe is contingent. Explain why God is not. Philosophy has no application to the origin of the universe anyway. That's a scientific question, not a philosophical one. Theoretical physicists are not stumped by apologetic pseudo-philosophy.

>I do not know that it was ever possible for nothing to exist. By occam's razor though it does seem as the simpler state. I would be interested to read what you have read that says quantum physics tells us that pure nothingness cannot exist because at this point I've never heard anything like that.

Lawrence Krauss A Universe from Nothing

Lecture available on youtube

1. I know James Barham is an atheist philosopher who ascribes to ID. As he wrote: "What is certain is that the Darwinian explanatory framework is logically confused and scientifically superficial with respect to the phenomena of normativity, teleology, and agency. Darwinism is a gigantic obstacle obscuring these important problems from our view, and I doubt we will make much progress towards solving them so long as Darwinian dogma retains its death grip on the minds of so many."
   
2. Philosopher and mathemetician David Berlinski, although having Jewish heritage, is an agostic, religion critic, and ID proponent.
   
3. While not a subscriber to ID, atheist Bradley Monton wrote a book defending ID as valid science.
   
4. There's also atheists Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, who wrote What Darwin Got Wrong. From their interview on salon.com: "Creationism isn't the only doctrine that's heavily into post-hoc explanation. Darwinism is too. If a creature develops the capacity to spin a web, you could tell a story of why spinning a web was good in the context of evolution. That is why you should be as suspicious of Darwinism as of creationism. They have spurious consequence in common. And that should be enough to make you worry about either account."
   
   When reading the profiles of ID'ers creation scientists, I frequently find conversions from atheism, deism, and theistic evolution, often only after years of research in their fields. Conversely, the deconversions I read occur at the beginning years of university, after young students reject the sham Hovind-style creationism being taught by people who know nothing about science. Senior NASA climatologist Roy Spencer described the trend:
   
   > Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. ... In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.
   
   Conversely, TalkOrigin's list of creationist deconversions is all high school and college kids. Seemingly because they encountered the tree of life, junk dna, and haeckel's embryology diagrams in the texbooks and were convinced by such "overwhelming evidence".
   
   
   
   

You should check out this book. Even if you disagree with it after finishing it, you'll have learned a great deal about the current state of our knowledge of cosmology and where it's going.

If you want to verify what why_am_I_here2 has referenced, you can pick up this book:


Karen Armstrong's "A History of God"


Alternatively, an atheist youtube series covers some of the content of the book in his videos:


3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1)

Here is a documentary done by the History Channel on the same book:


A History of God

Nowadays we would use the term "plagiarized", but at the time the Israelites/Hebrews were transitioning from polytheistic worship to monolatrous worship, and then eventually (much later on, during their exile in Babylon if I recall correctly) their form of worship shifted further into monotheism.

The origins of the Israelites are unclear, but one thing that is obvious is that they were intimately associated with (what we nowadays call) the Canaanites:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Canaanite_Religion

http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/mosesone.htm

They might have originally been Canaanites, they might have been the lowest levels of the earlier Bronze-Age Canaanite society, they might have been invaders who did indeed conquer and then adapted Canaanite culture for their own purposes.

https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canaan_bimson.html

Some have suggested that the origins of the Israelites may have been among the "Sea People" who apparently invaded much of the Mediterranean area and brought many advanced (for that time) civilizations down. However, if the origins of the Israelites were among a sea-faring people, the later Israelites showed a woeful lack of knowledge about ships and sailing, as especially demonstrated in their version of the "Ark" story.

For that matter, the very name of the Isra - EL - ites contains the name of the much older EL of the Canaanite polytheistic grouping of gods.

http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/

http://thetorah.com/who-was-balaams-god/

It also appears that many common Hebrew names contained "EL", too: http://www.abarim-publications.com/NaLi/2plusEl.html#.XFyKZExFyUm

You might be interested in checking out these two books (if you haven't already read them):

https://www.amazon.com/Did-God-Have-Wife-Archaeology/dp/0802863949

https://www.amazon.com/Early-History-God-Biblical-Resource/dp/080283972X

[edit to change 'which' to 'who']

Don't forget Bauckham's argument as to the authenticity of the gospels as substantively eyewitness accounts according to an examination of names used in them. See: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906

That's not true. There's polytheism written all over the old testament. You've probably never read A History of God by Karen Armstrong.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0345384563

Enough to write a whole book.

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468

Both of these books discuss it:

A History of God

The Bible: a biography

It's not stupid at all. When you're dealing with a text that is (parts of it, anyway) roughly 3,500 years old (assuming the pentateuch was completed in roughly 1,500 BCE) AND wasn't available for wide release until the creation of the printing press in the mid-15th century during which time illiteracy was the norm and- until that point- was copied by scribes, then of course you have to wonder about the veracity of today's bible.

I read a really interesting book called Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman that helped me understand this very problem. Note: he is a biblical scholar and practicing Christian, lest you think this is an attack on the bible.

That's not much of an argument. A better source. Here's a book by a christian theologian that talks about the history of God. I still find it surprising she remains christian after this, but shes a theologian. Most theologians find evidence to contradict their beliefs but ignore it anyway.

Delusion for sure.

No, the null hypothesis is "we don't know".
God(s) did it is a claim, as is it sprang into existence on its own. There is some evidence for the latter (1, 2)

Depends on what you mean by "literal." I'm partial to John Walton's approach. He argues that Genesis one is describing the assigning of functions in the temple opening ceremony of the cosmos, NOT the material creation of the universe. If that is so, and with the insights pointed out by mynuname regarding the logic behind the structure of the assignments, there is no scientific problem. This reading is "literal," but it is with an awareness of the historical context in which Genesis was written. For more on this see: http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-World-Genesis-One/dp/0830837043

>> “Elyon”, translated “the Most High”, is probably a separate god from “Yahweh”
>
> Why?

You act as if Basilides has simply pulled all this out of thin air, as if no biblical scholar in their right mind would think Yahweh was originally one of many sons of El in the ancient pantheon. But this theory is not as off-the-wall as some believers might think.

While such an idea might seem outrageous to you as a believer, try to withold your contempt based on unwarranted certainty. There's a whole world out there beyond the believers perspective. Embrace it.

User Basilides answers your eyewitness claim eloquently:

> "...one of the things Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) proposes is that the Twelve Apostles are named in order to identify them as eyewitnesses and also that the twelve were responsible for assuring the accuracy of the gospel narratives. But if that were true, how is it (As Stephen J. Patterson noted in his review: "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," Review of Biblical Literature; 2010, Vol. 12, p365-369)
that we ended up with four wildly divergent accounts? If the Twelve took it upon themselves to "peer review" the manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then whence so many discrepancies?

> I have already pointed to plenty of bullshit in the gospels. As Richard Carrier pointed out in his essay on the Resurrection, why is it that no one else in history noticed the tearing of the temple veil mentioned in Mark's passion narrative, not even the priests whose sole duty was attendance of the veil? Also see my previous post on the subject of gospel reliability here. Fact is, either the gospels are not based on eyewitness testimony or the eyewitnesses are pathological liars. Neither hypothesis is encouraging for someone arguing the resurrection."

> Was Jesus Raised: Reliability and Authorship of NT Documents

The claims of an eyewitness account are extremely shaky.

> bottled in the same plant

Are the factory codes the same? The factory codes on the can would be the analogy to the oxygen ratios of the rocks.

> Evidence?

Do you have evidence they witnessed it? Let's see it.

> commonplace for people to write down history

Not only do we have many manuscripts from that time, but we are talking about a singularly unique event: Re-animated corpses wandering around the town for days. And no one wrote a single page about it? Writing was indeed common then, so why don't we have documentation of it?

> Tacitus' Annals ... yet no one questions his authenticity

No extraordinary claims are made. We don't really have a reason to doubt them. I'm sure we could dig up someone who would disagree with their historical accuracy. How is this relevant to the veracity of the resurrection claim?

> Few objects of that sort survive this long.

The most important figure to ever walk the earth is crucified, and there are no relics of his life left behind? There are no souvenirs? We have manmade relics that date back thousands of years before Christ. They survived the ages just fine.

> Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

Faith by its very definition is gullibility. It is belief without evidence. It is belief without reason. People had "faith" in the god Mithra long before Jesus was around (6 BC). They had the exact same evidence you have. Born on the 25th of December to a virgin, witnessed by shepherds who followed a star, known as the son of god, could raise the dead, cure the blind and sick, sacrificed at the spring equinox (Eostre or Easter), rose up after three days and ascended into paradise. Get this, followers would even 'eat' their god in the form of wafers and bread marked with a cross. Followers even spoke of a judgement day when 'sinners' and the 'unbaptized' would be dragged into darkness.

Sounds pretty familiar right? These followers had just as much evidence and faith as you. Why are they wrong, and you are right?

>Morality is eternal.

Do you follow the laws in the OT? I'm mean they are eternal right?

>How to deal with other cultures

Quote the verse and explain how the jews in egypt would know that rule?

>What ideas (and/or tools) to accept or reject

Quote the verse and explain how the jews at the time would know this. This one I find particularly hilarious and ad hoc. There is not rule at all about what tools and technologies to accept. I'd be embarrassed for you if you weren't such an ignorant ass.

>What type of language to accept or reject

Quote the verse and explain how the jews at the time would know this. This is the part you will never defend. You will never actually put forth verses that say not to do this. In fact, jews today speak nearly all the languages on the planet.

>Who to associate with and how to do so

Same.

>What toys to play with, movies to watch, etc

Same.

>All of these things have been determined since... forever.

How did the jews have complete knowledge of the OT laws before they were written? Why did they disobey very simple concepts like "don't worship other gods" and still fail to violate such a difficult task as no cultural mixing?

Where does it say that there be no cultural mixing whatsoever. Something the jews have violated with every culture they have been introduced to?

>The point is that the very fact that you say "there was no covenant yet" proves that you do not understand this fundamental concept of theism. This also is evidence that you were never actually a Christian.

You are deeply confused if you think that the covenant existed prior to moses. Ask any jew on this board. The covenant was with israel. It was not in place before that, it was never established in the bible before that. All there was consisted of a promise to abraham and the noahide laws. That you think this is pretty entertaining. To assert that the same covenant always existed would be to assert that all people, not just the jews were part of the OT covenant and subject to those same laws.

>he deuteronomical laws were not the origin of morality any more than the use of penicillin was the origin of bacterial infection. They were the result, not the cause, of bad morality.

I never said they were the origin or morality. I will assert that there is no way people would have access (and strictly adhere to) all the laws laid forth in the OT. Some of which are pretty entertaining.

> I thought my illustration of "murder was wrong before a law against it was written" would have explained all this. I

This is because you are unintelligent. Murder it can be argued would be known as wrong, "cultural mixing" is not intuitively wrong. Same with a great deal of the laws in the OT. Further, there is no such law against cultural mixing as you are defining it.

>Heathen cultures (including Egyptians) reject that concept of morality

>Morality is just some "agreement" or human construct

YOu realize the egyptians were theists right?

>Death, and even human sacrifice is worshiped

See jephthah's daughter

>Fornication and hedonism are abound

Kinda like worshipping Cow statues...

>Even if the Israelite's concept of morality is wrong (it isn't), it's very easy to understand why they would completely reject everything about their captive's culture, even down to their eating utensils or haircuts.

No it's not. Your argument completely falls apart when you look at how heavily they adopt canaanite culture. In fact we see this with every single culture the jews ever mixed with. Including the babylonians who they were also captives of. You are saying two disparate cultures wouldn't mix, which history proves false over and over-even with the jews. Further, the bible itself shows they adopted views and practices of heathens.

>That's not even some "wack-ass-theory", that's what common sense would expect. Yet you call it "inane". How blind have you made yourself?

You are so stupid that you don't even realize that if what you are saying was true the jews wouldn't have adopted the cultural practices of ANY foreign culture. Not only is this inane, there is no example of it in all of human history.

>Not really.

Every single point by the poster challenging was completely addressed. The same is not true vice versa.

>This, my inane friend, is "running away", a cop-out. You only gave an author if I recall anyway. You only gave an author if I recall anyway.

How stupid are you? With that author you would instantly get the book with a quick search.

>ou came about a piece of archaeological evidence in some book that was so damning, so convincing, so certain, that you can't even mention it specifically.

Are you stupid. I'm claiming the entirety of the evidence is damning. And I specifically mentioned the gross anachronisms. The complete absence of evidence anywhere in all of egypt or canaan (remarkable to say the least), the fact that the cities in the bible were not all inhabited at the time, that other cities were not built until much later. That the jews would have to escape into a canaan already controlled by egypt. That the area doesn't support that kind of population. That egypt never suffered a great economic collapse. That canaan never experienced as massive influx of population. And that the jews show not one lick of evidence of having spent 400 years in egypt. Despite your inane protestations, there is no good reason at all to consider this plausible.

In fact, that's why the whole field rejects the exodus.

>You have to just mention a book. A book, I might add, that I'm not even sure (or even believe at this point) that you've even read yourself.

Its sad how dumb your are and how much you project. I briefly mention karen armstong's book [a history of god)[http://www.amazon.com/dp/0345384563] in a post where you misinterpret the subject of another thread as a place for more information. And due to your utter lack of education or willingness to investigate you assume I haven't read this book? Rather funny really.

>As I said, bring it up with him.

Why he already acknowledges the documentary hypothesis and openly states there is are errors in numbers. If that part of the bible is untrue why should I believe it?

>I hope for your sake it's because you aren't even trying, because that's certainly what it looks like from here

I'm not even having to try. You offer no challenge at all. Your arguments are so truly embarassing that you do my work for me. Some are so bad you yourself don't even make them any more. Claiming you cannot demonstrate a negative, Denying the scholarly opinion, arguing for magical mystery cities that no ones found with no reason to expect they exist...

This is all a bit comical. You are so desperate in your ignorance that you cannot even put together an informed opinion.