Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion

[Bird123]

Since those committing the unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:32 are never forgiven, then the 'fix' is that only humble meek people will inherit the Earth as promised at Psalms 37:9-11

What kind of Monster is your god that he sets conditions that are unforgivable. How Weak is your god who can not handle a few wayward kids. Your god is no God from where I see. The Real God has much more Intelligence than to mimic mankind. Yes, the Real God is going to fix all the little kiddies including those who hate and condemn others. With this in mind, the Real God will fix your god as well.

 

[Bird123]

I find Jesus gave the world a ' condition ' as found at John 3:16.
This is why the world is given two (2) choices at 2 Peter 3:9 to ' repent ' if we do Not want to ' perish ' (be destroyed).
Thus, as Psalms 92:7 says the wicked will be ' destroyed forever '.
Even the first Ten Commandments gave the Israelites conditions to be met.

It doesn't matter what you Believe. Simply because people write a holy book full of beliefs and stories does not mean they understand God at all.

Yes, Jesus is a Child of God. On the other hand, so are all of us. Jesus is no more greater in God's eyes than an Atheist or even a homeless person on the street.

You might say Jesus was a messenger from God, however aren't we all.

Everybody wants to rule the world. What is said about God so often reflects mankind not God. If you blindly believe or follow, you are not following God. To Question is the start on the real journey to discovery. God and life are not about following.

 

[Bird123]

Yes, and that is reflected at Ecclesiastes 8:9 that it is man who has dominates man to man's hurt or man's injury.
That is why God will bring to ruin those who want to destroy...... as per Revelation 11:18 B.

Can you blame mankind for frying the kiddies? I guess you can. It was mankind's idea to begin with in order to generate fear in those too rational to blindly follow stories and beliefs.

Hate, intimidation, coercion,blame, judging, condemning, ruling and controlling others is not a Higher Level. Be careful making choices around these things. You will choose lessons for yourself regardless of what you believe and regardless of how pretty religion dresses them up for you.

 

[charlie sc]

Wait, so the cosmological argument isn't arguing for "god or the supernatural"? Really?

Sigh.

This is the most widely used cosmological argument - the Kalam cosmological argument. There's no god inserted here.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

The reason why is because the others, as I recall, face the problem of god's existence if you put him there. So, if you want to examine those, sure, but copy/paste which syllogism you want to examine.

It's one thing to disagree with the argument, but are you claiming that something natural--maybe aliens again--could be the first cause of the Universe?

No lol. As I recall, there are two main scientific theories claiming the start or lack-thereof of the universe. One says the universe never began to exist but has always existed, continually repeating its cycle. To be honest, no one really knows. Right ?

I get that we can't learn everything about God from the cosmological argument as well as the argument from cosmic constants (aka the fine-tuning argument). But surely the goal of the arguments--whether sound in your mind or not--is to show that there is a God, right?

I addressed this above. I'll mention this at the end and try summarise what needs to be done

I keep going back and forth in my mind as to whether we should get into arguments for the existence of God. It's definitely likely we should.

It's probably a good idea. Even a sound argument may not have any relevance of reality if it's based off fiction. For instance, I could make a sound argument about hobbits from The Lords of the Rings.

Did I say that? I thought I said, "Arguments for God (e.g., the cosmological argument, cosmic constants, etc.) show evidence for God's existence, whereas no evidence for aliens has been discovered, even in spite of expensive SETI efforts."

SETI hasn't found god either

there's evidence for God and no evidence for aliens, unless you're saying otherwise.

I don't think there is any evidence for god, neither is there evidence for intelligent aliens. However, we do have verifiable empirical evidence for sentient life and technology improving. Therefore, it's possible aliens exist. I'm not going to say god(s) don't exist but there's certainly lack of empirical evidence. I suppose, the best you could come up with is stuff like intelligent design, and so on, which all have many flaws.

Hmm, we probably are going to have to have some sort of "God vs. aliens" debate, lol!

It's not really necessary. All I really need, from you, is an admittance that it's possible technologically advance aliens exist. If you can't admit this, why?

You know, now that I think about it, what would it take for you to believe, Charlie? Even if God Himself appeared in front of you in some way, would you just write Him off as some giant alien?

If some supremely powerful being appeared in front of me, of course I would. However, I'd need to go through some stages. First, I'd need to check if I'm not delusional. Second, I'd want a few demonstrations of this beings power. Third, I'd need to confirm with this entity which deity it belongs to if it belongs to any.

I can tell when you say God, you want it to be your God, don't you ? I don't have this hope or inclination. If a god appeared in front of me, I'd ask this entity rather than assume.

I don't want you to just "go along with" what I'm saying. For the first premise, we have to assume Jesus rose from the dead, of course. However, I'm not going around like, "So, if we assume this and assume that and then assume ... therefore, the resurrection was a divine miracle." There's a sphere of agreement about Jesus that almost everyone, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, etc., grants, and I'm trying to work from there. Neither the Journal of the American Medical Association nor John Dominic Crossan are Christian apologists, by any means.

Ok, so the first premise is

P1: Only God revives humans from the dead

We can change it to

P1: Only God revives humans from a biologically dead state past 3 days

I'm willing to say Jesus was biologically dead for 3 days. Now, we can continue. It's unlikely he rose up by himself with this proposition. Now, we need to determine if god is the only entity that's capable of doing this.

So I'm not asking you to assume anything that mainstream, secular scholarship doesn't grant. This doesn't make the discussion "less reciprocal." Claiming that aliens did it, a theory no scholar of any philosophical persuasion takes seriously, would seem more in that direction.

I'm not sure why your focus is on scholars. The most reliable method of examining reality is science and that has not found god nor aliens. Therefore, we can't use science to claim god or aliens exist or don't exist. See my point? You are using, I assume, religion to prove the existence of god(faith based), anecdotes, and I assume some philosophical(outdated and widely criticised) arguments. The evidence for aliens is the infinite amount of planets, some of which may be possible for life to develop. Actual examples of technology and sentient life and anecdotes. Bleh To be honest, I don't even need to go down this alien route; there are so many sci-fi ideas. I could even talk about a powerful entity just not your god.

Wait, so the cosmological argument isn't arguing for "god or the supernatural"? Really? It's one thing to disagree with the argument, but are you claiming that something natural--maybe aliens again--could be the first cause of the Universe? I get that we can't learn everything about God from the cosmological argument as well as the argument from cosmic constants (aka the fine-tuning argument). But surely the goal of the arguments--whether sound in your mind or not--is to show that there is a God, right?

Okay, so I'm going to sum up what you need to do if you don't want to respond to the above and I think it's important to have some clear idea of what's going on. I'll also explain where I plan to go with this.

You need to demonstrate
(a) someone reviving from a biologically dead state for 3 days is necessarily a supernatural phenomenon
(b) Once the supernatural is necessarily the case, you need to demonstrate necessarily why it's a supernatural deity, not some supernatural powerful entity or an unguided supernatural phenomenon.
(c) Once you demonstrate it's a deity, you need to demonstrate necessarily why it's your deity, if you want to.

you may not need to necessarily demonstrate a god exists if you can get to these, but it's probably needed. I have no idea how you can demonstrate any of this other than just asserting it, lol, which is not demonstrating.

You can demonstrate this a few ways. You can either use deductive arguments or science. Good luck

Btw, I can understand why it seems like a supernatural answer must prima facie be the case for someone reviving after being biologically dead for 3 days. Reviving in this manner is not demonstrated in science, however, the supernatural is not either. So again, you can't use science to demonstrate the supernatural, unless it's already substantiated in science.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Can you blame mankind for frying the kiddies? I guess you can. It was mankind's idea to begin with in order to generate fear in those too rational to blindly follow stories and beliefs.
Hate, intimidation, coercion,blame, judging, condemning, ruling and controlling others is not a Higher Level. Be careful making choices around these things. You will choose lessons for yourself regardless of what you believe and regardless of how pretty religion dresses them up for you.

Just as 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 informs us we are in the last days of badness on Earth.
The people in general in these last days are described as having a distorted self-centered selfish love.
Which is in sharp contrast to the definition of Christ-like love as defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.
They are out of harmony with Jesus' New commandment found at John 13:34-35.
Those who follow Jesus have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
In other words, they now love neighbor ' more ' than self, more than the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18)

 

[Shad]

Wait, so the cosmological argument isn't arguing for "god or the supernatural"? Really? It's one thing to disagree with the argument, but are you claiming that something natural--maybe aliens again--could be the first cause of the Universe? I get that we can't learn everything about God from the cosmological argument as well as the argument from cosmic constants (aka the fine-tuning argument). But surely the goal of the arguments--whether sound in your mind or not--is to show that there is a God, right?

Sigh.

This is the most widely used cosmological argument - the Kalam cosmological argument. There's no god inserted here.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

.

Time is an issue as time is part of the universe so there was no "before" prior to the universe thus no time thus "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is an error in category

Old and flawed argument

*edit to include the first reply*

 

[Bird123]

Just as 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 informs us we are in the last days of badness on Earth.
The people in general in these last days are described as having a distorted self-centered selfish love.
Which is in sharp contrast to the definition of Christ-like love as defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.
They are out of harmony with Jesus' New commandment found at John 13:34-35.
Those who follow Jesus have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
In other words, they now love neighbor ' more ' than self, more than the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18)

Unconditional Love always does what is best for the other.

This world in a multilevel classroom. One can always find others learning lessons we have already learned. Does that justify hating them? Of course not.

Choices are a part of the learning system. Though you want to control the choices of others to be only good choices,this will not provide the learning that leads to bad choices not longer being a viable choice.

Since, this multilevel classroom is working so well, I would not count on God changing it to fit your or religions will. Go ahead. Write the stories. Beliefs will fade under the light of the truth.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Time is an issue as time is part of the universe so there was no "before" prior to the universe thus no time thus "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is an error in category

To me, by Psalms 90:2 saying ' from everlasting to everlasting ' means time is an issue as part of the universe...
Eternity is in our minds and hearts because for each day we can think of we can always think of a next day.
We can count both forwards and backwards endlessly forever and ever.
Thus, God the Creator is ' before ' or ' prior ' to the universe, then only He was before the beginning of creation.
No one, nor nothing created the 'from everlasting Creator'. His internal existence is from everlasting.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Unconditional Love always does what is best for the other.
Beliefs will fade under the light of the truth.

What I find 'best for the other' is Jesus' NEW commandment as found at John 13:34-35.
We are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
With such self-sacrificing love there are conditions or requirements to be met.

What is going to fade is Not the ' light of the truth ' of 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.
When the 'powers that be' are saying, "Peace and Security..." that will be the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

 

[Shad]

To me, by Psalms 90:2 saying ' from everlasting to everlasting ' means time is an issue as part of the universe...
Eternity is in our minds and hearts because for each day we can think of we can always think of a next day.
We can count both forwards and backwards endlessly forever and ever.
Thus, God the Creator is ' before ' or ' prior ' to the universe, then only He was before the beginning of creation.
No one, nor nothing created the 'from everlasting Creator'. His internal existence is from everlasting.

You are just ignoring the time issue while using time references. You have no point. There is no before nor prior. You didn't grasp my point at all.

 

[Kilk1]

It's probably a good idea [to address God's existence]. Even a sound argument may not have any relevance of reality if it's based off fiction. For instance, I could make a sound argument about hobbits from The Lords of the Rings.

Let's do it! By "sound," I meant "The property (of an argument) of not only being valid, but also of having true premises." In this definition, a sound argument is a true one.

Sigh.

This is the most widely used cosmological argument - the Kalam cosmological argument. There's no god inserted here.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

The reason why is because the others, as I recall, face the problem of god's existence if you put him there. So, if you want to examine those, sure, but copy/paste which syllogism you want to examine.


[...] As I recall, there are two main scientific theories claiming the start or lack-thereof of the universe. One says the universe never began to exist but has always existed, continually repeating its cycle. To be honest, no one really knows. Right ?

The syllogism you posted is the one I was thinking of. It almost seems self-evident that the first premise is true (right?), so let's move to the second premise. When considering the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is constantly increasing. Furthermore, space is expanding. If we could rewind time, both of these variables (entropy and space expansion) would eventually hit zero. Doesn't this suggest a starting point of the Universe?

It's true that the conclusion ("The universe has a cause") doesn't mention God. The significance of the argument is that a cause of the Universe would, of course, be outside the Universe. This apparently involves being outside "the sum of everything that exists in the cosmos, including time and space itself." This doesn't show everything about God, but doesn't it demonstrate the cause to have eternality (being outside time), omnipresence (being over space), and likely omnipotence?

SETI hasn't found god either

I don't think there is any evidence for god, neither is there evidence for intelligent aliens. However, we do have verifiable empirical evidence for sentient life and technology improving. Therefore, it's possible aliens exist. I'm not going to say god(s) don't exist but there's certainly lack of empirical evidence. I suppose, the best you could come up with is stuff like intelligent design, and so on, which all have many flaws.

This is where I was getting at when I mentioned cosmic constants. Without an intelligent Designer, it would be a shocker that even one planet (Earth) is capable of supporting technologically advanced life, let alone other planets. Everything appears to be fine-tuned for life. For examples, see here.

Would an entity capable of knowing these variables and setting them just so, not qualify as God?

It's not really necessary. All I really need, from you, is an admittance that it's possible technologically advance aliens exist. If you can't admit this, why?

I could say it's "possible" technologically advanced aliens exist, but possibility isn't probability. It could even be "possible" that I'm not really typing this message but that my mind is playing tricks on me. Therefore, since the debate centers on the cause of Jesus' resurrection, I think some sort of God-vs.-aliens debate is becoming necessary after all. Does the evidence we have better support God or aliens as the cause of Jesus' resurrection?

The cosmological argument, the Universe's cosmic constants necessary for life, and Jesus Himself would say the former.

If some supremely powerful being appeared in front of me, of course I would. However, I'd need to go through some stages. First, I'd need to check if I'm not delusional. Second, I'd want a few demonstrations of this beings power. Third, I'd need to confirm with this entity which deity it belongs to if it belongs to any.


I can tell when you say God, you want it to be your God, don't you ? I don't have this hope or inclination. If a god appeared in front of me, I'd ask this entity rather than assume.

Well, those who saw Jesus risen weren't delusional (we can get into this if you disagree), and they sincerely believed they witnessed many miracles by Him, the chief of which was His resurrection. Therefore, if they ask Jesus who He is and He answers "God" or "the Son of God," shouldn't they believe Him and acknowledge this God?

I'm not sure why your focus is on scholars. The most reliable method of examining reality is science and that has not found god nor aliens. Therefore, we can't use science to claim god or aliens exist or don't exist. See my point? You are using, I assume, religion to prove the existence of god(faith based), anecdotes, and I assume some philosophical(outdated and widely criticised) arguments. The evidence for aliens is the infinite amount of planets, some of which may be possible for life to develop. Actual examples of technology and sentient life and anecdotes. Bleh To be honest, I don't even need to go down this alien route; there are so many sci-fi ideas. I could even talk about a powerful entity just not your god.

Since you're claiming here that any powerful being could be responsible for Jesus' resurrection, not just who Jesus claimed, how do you reconcile this with your statement above that "If some supremely powerful being appeared in front of me, of course I would"? (I'm assuming the thing you "would" do is "believe" the being, not "write Him off as some giant alien.")

Okay, so I'm going to sum up what you need to do if you don't want to respond to the above and I think it's important to have some clear idea of what's going on. I'll also explain where I plan to go with this.

You need to demonstrate
(a) someone reviving from a biologically dead state for 3 days is necessarily a supernatural phenomenon
(b) Once the supernatural is necessarily the case, you need to demonstrate necessarily why it's a supernatural deity, not some supernatural powerful entity or an unguided supernatural phenomenon.
(c) Once you demonstrate it's a deity, you need to demonstrate necessarily why it's your deity, if you want to.

you may not need to necessarily demonstrate a god exists if you can get to these, but it's probably needed. I have no idea how you can demonstrate any of this other than just asserting it, lol, which is not demonstrating.

You can demonstrate this a few ways. You can either use deductive arguments or science. Good luck

Well, since I'm using arguments for God, maybe I don't have to answer these? Lol! Anyway, I'm not convinced that inserting "necessarily" is, well, necessary. As long as the evidence is sufficient, we don't need 100% necessity.

The reason (a) is true is because nature is primarily discovered through science. Someone who's been crucified and then has their heart pierced with a spear cannot live without contradicting what science tells us. Therefore, if it happened, it's supernatural because it's outside what we've determined by science to be natural. Beyond reasonable doubt, people can't (naturally) revive from what happened to Jesus.

Regarding (b), I extend my arguments for God. Someone outside the Universe not only had the power to create the Universe but did it in a finely tuned manner such that the complex conditions for life are met. If this isn't Deity, what would be? And (c) asks which Deity it is; is it the God of deism, of Judeo-Christianity, of Islam, etc.? Well, the Christ, the Messiah, was the one who was raised from the dead. Why then couldn't it be His Deity, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Col. 1:3, NKJV) who raised Him from the dead (Acts 17:30-31)? (Of course, Jesus [also known as "the Word"] Himself is said to be God [e.g., John 1:1], but that's a different discussion. )

Btw, I can understand why it seems like a supernatural answer must prima facie be the case for someone reviving after being biologically dead for 3 days. Reviving in this manner is not demonstrated in science, however, the supernatural is not either. So again, you can't use science to demonstrate the supernatural, unless it's already substantiated in science.

That Jesus' resurrection is supernatural isn't determined by what we don't know from science but what we do know. Science gives us a sphere of what happens in nature, so if someone does something outside that sphere, it's supernatural. Since science tells us that in nature, someone who was crucified and had their heart pierced is truly, biologically dead and cannot revive, therefore Jesus' resurrection must be outside nature (i.e., supernatural).

Well, looks like we both have made giant posts, lol!

 

[charlie sc]

That Jesus' resurrection is supernatural isn't determined by what we don't know from science but what we do know. Science gives us a sphere of what happens in nature, so if someone does something outside that sphere, it's supernatural. Since science tells us that in nature, someone who was crucified and had their heart pierced is truly, biologically dead and cannot revive, therefore Jesus' resurrection must be outside nature (i.e., supernatural).

I'm going to mention this one first because I think it's more relevant to the first premise. No, science doesn't work like this at all. In the scientific method, you give evidence for a theory with evidence not by assumptions. The theory becomes substantiated with what we know, not what we don't know. This is a complete misunderstanding of how science works.

Let's do it! By "sound," I meant "The property (of an argument) of not only being valid, but also of having true premises." In this definition, a sound argument is a true one.

Yes, I know. When you're talking about validity, you say premise. When you're talking about the truthfulness of the premise, you say proposition. I can still make a sound syllogisms for Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings.

It almost seems self-evident that the first premise is true (right?), so let's move to the second premise.

It may be self evident for you, but not for me. There are some problems with this proposition. The first proposition seems to be conflating cause as in we see cause and effect and things popping into existence. I suppose we could examine it further but your reluctance to even want to examine the first proposition makes me wonder if there's even a point continuing this discussion.

This is where I was getting at when I mentioned cosmic constants. Without an intelligent Designer, it would be a shocker that even one planet (Earth) is capable of supporting technologically advanced life, let alone other planets. Everything appears to be fine-tuned for life. For examples, see here.

Would an entity capable of knowing these variables and setting them just so, not qualify as God?

Just because something appears to be fine tuned does not mean it is. We don't have another universe to compare it to.

I could say it's "possible" technologically advanced aliens exist, but possibility isn't probability. It could even be "possible" that I'm not really typing this message but that my mind is playing tricks on me.

Now you're starting to get it

Does the evidence we have better support God or aliens as the cause of Jesus' resurrection?

This answer might shock you, but because you're so involved you may have not considered it. I don't know. Oh wow, look at that. Have you considered this answer? You need Jesus to exist don't you? Without this concept, how many years of your life is wasted and can you comprehend a life where heaven doesn't exist? There's a conflict of interest here, my friend.

Well, those who saw Jesus risen weren't delusional (we can get into this if you disagree), and they sincerely believed they witnessed many miracles by Him, the chief of which was His resurrection. Therefore, if they ask Jesus who He is and He answers "God" or "the Son of God," shouldn't they believe Him and acknowledge this God?

This is quite different from the question you asked before. This is hearsay and there's no evidence required here. Neither, it seems, have you considered alternatives to this.

Since you're claiming here that any powerful being could be responsible for Jesus' resurrection, not just who Jesus claimed, how do you reconcile this with your statement above that "If some supremely powerful being appeared in front of me, of course I would"? (I'm assuming the thing you "would" do is "believe" the being, not "write Him off as some giant alien.")

Yes, I'd believe what he can demonstrate, not anything else. As you know, just because one thing is true does not make another thing true unless they logically follow.

Well, since I'm using arguments for God, maybe I don't have to answer these? Lol! Anyway, I'm not convinced that inserting "necessarily" is, well, necessary. As long as the evidence is sufficient, we don't need 100% necessity.

If you want to use a deductive argument, it needs to be 100% necessary. NO other possibilities

The reason (a) is true is because nature is primarily discovered through science. Someone who's been crucified and then has their heart pierced with a spear cannot live without contradicting what science tells us. Therefore, if it happened, it's supernatural because it's outside what we've determined by science to be natural. Beyond reasonable doubt, people can't (naturally) revive from what happened to Jesus.

Nope. If someone died and revived that science can't explain it doesn't necessarily make it supernatural, unless you've explored all natural possible scenarios. Since we are leaving the realm of science, we can claim almost anything has equal explanatory power.

Regarding (b), I extend my arguments for God. Someone outside the Universe not only had the power to create the Universe but did it in a finely tuned manner such that the complex conditions for life are met. If this isn't Deity, what would be? And (c) asks which Deity it is; is it the God of deism, of Judeo-Christianity, of Islam, etc.? Well, the Christ, the Messiah, was the one who was raised from the dead. Why then couldn't it be His Deity, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Col. 1:3, NKJV) who raised Him from the dead (Acts 17:30-31)? (Of course, Jesus [also known as "the Word"] Himself is said to be God [e.g., John 1:1], but that's a different discussion. )

Assuming it was a deity, here you explain you have no evidence other than circular reasoning that it was your deity

 

[Bird123]

What I find 'best for the other' is Jesus' NEW commandment as found at John 13:34-35.
We are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
With such self-sacrificing love there are conditions or requirements to be met.

What is going to fade is Not the ' light of the truth ' of 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.
When the 'powers that be' are saying, "Peace and Security..." that will be the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

Seems you are wrapped up in your stories. These stories will never happen. There is not peace on Earth for good reasons. When one discovers that peace is the only viable option, peace will exist.

A self-sacrificing love with conditions is not True Love. By insisting on conditions for your love, it becomes a selfish love with the purpose of controlling someone's actions. That makes it all so petty. There is a Higher Level. Unconditional Love does exist.

 

[Kilk1]

Although we decided not to deal with whether Jesus revived until figuring out if it would require that God raised Jesus from the dead, I'm starting to wonder if we need to back up yet further and now focus on the existence of God in general. Because you're inserting other beings to explain Jesus' resurrection, claiming they're just as likely if not likelier than Jesus' God, maybe we need to examine such a claim.

Because I think we should back up in this way, I'm not going to respond to everything in your last post. However, if you think I missed something important, feel free to bring it up.

I'm going to mention this one first because I think it's more relevant to the first premise. No, science doesn't work like this at all. In the scientific method, you give evidence for a theory with evidence not by assumptions. The theory becomes substantiated with what we know, not what we don't know. This is a complete misunderstanding of how science works.

I would, however, like to say something about this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. If there's a scientific theory that people can't revive within minutes of being biologically dead, and time and time again we see consistently that such is the case, would this count as giving "evidence for a theory with evidence not by assumptions"? And would this make the theory "substantiated with what we know, not what we don't know"?

(Of course, this doesn't relate to God's existence in general, so you decide if you want to answer it.)

Yes, I know. When you're talking about validity, you say premise. When you're talking about the truthfulness of the premise, you say proposition. I can still make a sound syllogisms for Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings.

I definitely think we're not understanding each other here. Just to confirm whether we're on the same page, can you give me a sound syllogism for Hobbits?

It may be self evident for you, but not for me. There are some problems with this proposition. The first proposition seems to be conflating cause as in we see cause and effect and things popping into existence. I suppose we could examine it further but your reluctance to even want to examine the first proposition makes me wonder if there's even a point continuing this discussion.

Who said I'm "reluctant" to deal with the first proposition? There's a reason I inserted "(right?)" after saying it seems self-evident. In saying it "seems to be conflating cause as in we see cause and effect and things popping into existence," are you referencing the objection that the definition of "begins to exist" that we experience involves the arrangement of atoms, something different than the origin of atoms ("things popping into existence")?

Just because something appears to be fine tuned does not mean it is. We don't have another universe to compare it to.

Now that's a strange response. There are many cosmic constants, each of which experts say could have turned out much differently. The atheist Martin Rees listed just six of these numbers. See here for more details: Why is There Life? | DiscoverMagazine.com. For what it's worth, this secular piece also posits two alternative theories to what they call being driven "into the arms of the theologians." Let me know what you think.

 

[tayla]

How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?

Belief in God would re-emerge immediately because the subjective experience of conscious demands belief in a spiritual realm. Science only demonstrates that consciousness is tightly coupled with brain function. There is no natural law called consciousness and no quantum field called consciousness. Merely calling consciousness an emergent property, or a process of brain activity; these statements say nothing about the subjective experience of consciousness.

 

[charlie sc]

Belief in God would re-emerge immediately because the subjective experience of conscious demands belief in a spiritual realm. Science only demonstrates that consciousness is tightly coupled with brain function. There is no natural law called consciousness and no quantum field called consciousness. Merely calling consciousness an emergent property, or a process of brain activity; these statements say nothing about the subjective experience of consciousness.

This may be true, but I don’t think we’d find the same deities people believe in today. A deity would have to show up to do this wondrous act

 

[joelr]

Well, those who saw Jesus risen weren't delusional (we can get into this if you disagree), and they sincerely believed they witnessed many miracles by Him, the chief of which was His resurrection. Therefore, if they ask Jesus who He is and He answers "God" or "the Son of God," shouldn't they believe Him and acknowledge this God?

The reason (a) is true is because nature is primarily discovered through science. Someone who's been crucified and then has their heart pierced with a spear cannot live without contradicting what science tells us. Therefore, if it happened, it's supernatural because it's outside what we've determined by science to be natural. Beyond reasonable doubt, people can't (naturally) revive from what happened to Jesus.

Your using science here to compute likelyhood but failing to use another important science - history.
what they teach in theology schools is not what's taught in historicity studies.
The science of historical biblical studies does not consider the gospels to be reliable history.


Wiki Historical reliability of the Gospels

"The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable"

"Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous."

All gospels copied from Mark (or Q) with changes added:

"Most scholars hold to the two-source hypothesis which claims that the Gospel of Mark was written first. According to the hypothesis, the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke then used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document, in addition to some other sources, to write their individual gospels.["
"the majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim."



They are also written in a highly mythic style similar to other earlier mystery dying/rising savior god religions spreading around the area. Not written as histories of the day.

All outside sources by historians simply mention that there were Christians who followed the gospels. The witnesses listed in the gospels are simply witnesses listed in religious mythology and are not reliable.


Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

 

[Kilk1]

Your using science here to compute likelyhood but failing to use another important science - history.
what they teach in theology schools is not what's taught in historicity studies.
The science of historical biblical studies does not consider the gospels to be reliable history.


Wiki Historical reliability of the Gospels

"The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable"

"Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous."

All gospels copied from Mark (or Q) with changes added:

"Most scholars hold to the two-source hypothesis which claims that the Gospel of Mark was written first. According to the hypothesis, the authors of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke then used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document, in addition to some other sources, to write their individual gospels.["
"the majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim."



They are also written in a highly mythic style similar to other earlier mystery dying/rising savior god religions spreading around the area. Not written as histories of the day.

All outside sources by historians simply mention that there were Christians who followed the gospels. The witnesses listed in the gospels are simply witnesses listed in religious mythology and are not reliable.


Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

You don't understand the case for Jesus' resurrection. The evidence shows that Jesus died and was seen alive after death, and thus He rose from the dead. As even resurrection skeptic John Dominic Crossan said, "Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixition, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus."

As for Jesus being alive afterward, even most skeptics of Christianity grant that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is a nutshell of the gospel that the original Christians believed. They also grant that the passage isn't guilty of embellishment and that the statement is sincere. Therefore, in the words of Germany’s leading resurrection skeptic, Gerd Lüdemann, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ” (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80, emphasis mine).

The question then becomes, "How could the witnesses see Jesus alive after He was crucified?" Most skeptics today, including Lüdemann, believe they merely hallucinated, but that contradicts the fact that people saw Jesus even in groups. Because hallucinations come from a person's mind, a group hallucination would itself be supernatural. If you hallucinate an apple in front of you, no one else will be able to see it. If anyone else does, the apple's really there!

Furthermore, even skeptics like the apostle Paul converted upon seeing Jesus risen. (Again, it's unchallenged even by secular scholarship that Paul was a persecutor-turned Christian who said his radical transformation was because he saw Jesus risen.) How could he hallucinate something happening that he "knew" (at least in his mind) to be false? A modern-day equivalent would be for the likes of Richard Dawkins to suddenly claim he saw Jesus, and then become a Christian.

The best explanation, though controversial for being religious, is that Jesus was really there to be seen. In other words, yes, Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[joelr]

You don't understand the case for Jesus' resurrection. The evidence shows that Jesus died and was seen alive after death, and thus He rose from the dead. As even resurrection skeptic John Dominic Crossan said, "Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixition, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus."

Of course I understand the case for the resurrection, I just laid it out to which you completely ignored?
All we have are gospel stories which are not eyewitness and not historically reliable.

"Wiki - Historical reliability of the Gospels"

"The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable"

"Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous."

Tacitus - was writing about a fire in Rome and mentioned that there were people called Christians who followed Christus (he misspelled it) and he was killed. Tacitus was explaining what the Christian beliefs were.
This is not proof of the gospels being real in any way.

Flavius Josephus - again he just mentions that there are Christians and the church later added text.
"The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration."


If you want to name a scholar then I'll name Richard carrier who favors mythicism 3 to 1 and is the only PhD doing an actual historicity study on Jesus.

As for Jesus being alive afterward, even most skeptics of Christianity grant that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is a nutshell of the gospel that the original Christians believed. They also grant that the passage isn't guilty of embellishment and that the statement is sincere. Therefore, in the words of Germany’s leading resurrection skeptic, Gerd Lüdemann, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ” (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80, emphasis mine).

Paul claims knowledge through scripture and revelation. Who cares? Suddenly no one ever has crafted myths based on religious characters that were not actually real? How about every religious scripture ever.
The gospels read as typical religious myth from the era, not as histories from the era. Richard Carrier demonstrated this.

Gerd Lüdemann doesn't seem to believe in the resurrection, he
debated William Lane Craig over Jesus' resurrection?

And we don't know what the original Christians believed. The first canon the Marcionite canon has been lost. The gospels are a response to the first canon.

The question then becomes, "How could the witnesses see Jesus alive after He was crucified?" Most skeptics today, including Lüdemann, believe they merely hallucinated, but that contradicts the fact that people saw Jesus even in groups. Because hallucinations come from a person's mind, a group hallucination would itself be supernatural. If you hallucinate an apple in front of you, no one else will be able to see it. If anyone else does, the apple's really there!

Unless the apple was written about in non-eyewitness, mythical style religious myths. Then it's not real. Everything we know is from the gospels.
I've already covered why they are not historically reliable, it's fan-fiction written to be a Judaised savior god, and like the Wiki quote says they are not considered history!?

Furthermore, even skeptics like the apostle Paul converted upon seeing Jesus risen. (Again, it's unchallenged even by secular scholarship that Paul was a persecutor-turned Christian who said his radical transformation was because he saw Jesus risen.) How could he hallucinate something happening that he "knew" (at least in his mind) to be false? A modern-day equivalent would be for the likes of Richard Dawkins to suddenly claim he saw Jesus, and then become a Christian.

The best explanation, though controversial for being religious, is that Jesus was really there to be seen. In other words, yes, Jesus rose from the dead.

Sure and everyone who claims alien abduction who was otherwise rational and non-believers in aliens must be telling a true story.

Paul changed his mind, who cares? Doesn't prove anything? He spoke of scripture he read. He read some myths and decided it was real. Same as millions of other people over the centuries who read about something supernatural and were inspired to begin believing in whatever supernatural claim it made.
There are millions of eye-witnesses to Sai-Baba's actual magic in India in the early 1900's. Yet we know he's not supernatural either.

Means nothing. Paul claims "revelation", super sketchy.

You're ignoring all the counter evidence as well. The savior demi-god movement started before Christianity and was adopted in Judaism so they could also have a savior god, gospels all copied from Mark, gospels written in a highly mythical style.
There is no reason to believe these stories over stories of Thor or Romulus.

 

[Polymath257]

Sigh.

This is the most widely used cosmological argument - the Kalam cosmological argument. There's no god inserted here.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

The reason why is because the others, as I recall, face the problem of god's existence if you put him there. So, if you want to examine those, sure, but copy/paste which syllogism you want to examine.

There are problems with this argument, of course.

First, the claim that whatever begins to exist has a cause is faulty. We know that most quantum level events are uncaused in any traditional sense.

Second, the phrase 'begins to exist' is problematic. What does it actually mean? Does it mean that there was a time when the 'whatever' didn't exist and a later time where it did? Or is there some other interpretation?

Third, and assuming the interpretation in the last paragraph, the universe almost certainly did NOT 'begin to exist'. Why not? Because there was no time when the universe did not exist. The point is that time is part of the universe, so whenever time existed, so did the universe. This would be true even if time itself is finite in duration.

Fourth, the universe is a collective, not a single entity. The fact that a collective begins to exist doesn't mean there is a single cause for the collective as a whole. So, there may be a cause for everything *within* the universe, but not for the universe itself. Another way to say this is that collectives tend to have multiple causes, not a single cause.

Fifth, in no way does this argument prove the existence of a God. At *most* it proves that the universe had a cause. But it says nothing at all about that cause. In particular, it does not show whether that cause began to exist or not. It doesn't not show that cause had any properties we usually assign to deities, like intelligence, planning, omniscience, omnipotence, etc.

All in all, the Kalam argument, while very popular, fails miserably in its goal.