If it could be proved no god exists

[Katzpur]

NOTHING will convince the believers.

Positive proof would convince me. I'm open to reconsidering my position.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I didn't know that that would be the Jewish response. What you wrote isn't really what one would derive using the Hebrew correlation, Bible.

You must be totally unfamiliar with Judaism if you think that Jews are ever going to accept Jesus as the Son of God.

 

[Desert Snake]

You must be totally unfamiliar with Judaism if you think that Jews are ever going to accept Jesus as the Son of God.

Your wording makes no sense. Traditionally, Jesus isn't "the sn of g-d', He is god, an aspect of God. You aren't reading what I'm writing, or something.

There can be a theological difference, there, however there definitely is a language thing going on , there.

In other words, you aren't using a Hebrew Bible correlation, for what you're saying. You are presenting a certain type of christian and christian religious group/s wording and theology ideas.

No idea how you derived that from the Bible, if you're Jewish.

In other words, you didn't. you either aren't from a Jewish religious background, or just feel like presenting something abstract in a "Bible", context.

I already told you, my beliefs are 'One God, more than one form',

Which does correlate to the Hebrew Bible, words and theological inference.

Im not sure if you're an ex Catholic, or what you're religious background is, however Im not going to entertain your strawman arguments.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your wording makes no sense. Traditionally, Jesus isn't "the sn of g-d', He is god, an aspect of God. You aren't reading what I'm writing, or something.

To say that Jesus is God is worse, but to say that he is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God is still completely unacceptable. That's all I'm saying. That's Judaism. I don't know why you can't accept that. Are you some kind of Messianic Jew trying to make it okay for you to believe in Jesus? Because it's not okay if you are a Jew.

In other words, you aren't using a Hebrew Bible correlation, for what you're saying. You are presenting a certain type of christian and christian religious group/s wording and theology ideas.

No idea how you derived that from the Bible, if you're Jewish.

I don't even know what you are talking about. The Tanakh uses the phrase son of God to mean something totally different than what Christians mean, such as David being a son of God or Israel being God's first born son. But an ONLY BEGOTTEN son? No such thing.

In other words, you didn't. you either aren't from a Jewish religious background, or just feel like presenting something abstract in a "Bible", context.

Which does correlate to the Hebrew Bible, words and theological inference.

You are welcome to document your idea with examples from the Tanakh. Not the NT. That wouldn't matter to the discussion. We already know that Christianity teaches it. The question is whether Judaism teaches it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Neither do you. The image of a god you have constructed has no evidence to support it.

It has as much evidence as it is possible to have for an essentially unknowable God.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you feel the need to laugh, you must ignore history.
He got what many men aspire to - his name in the book of history.

Baha'u'llah did everything He did for God. That is what He clearly said and there is no reason to think He was not telling the truth since there would be no motive to lie.

 

[Trailblazer]

ETA: I did read one sentence:

“Who can ever believe that this Servant of God hath at any time cherished in His heart a desire for any earthly honor or benefit?​

He says he is just a humble servant and you believe him. How naive.

Of course I believe Him, because He did everything He said.

 

[Desert Snake]

To say that Jesus is God is worse, but to say that he is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God is still completely unacceptable. That's all I'm saying. That's Judaism. I don't know why you can't accept that. Are you some kind of Messianic Jew trying to make it okay for you to believe in Jesus? Because it's not okay if you are a Jew.

I don't even know what you are talking about. The Tanakh uses the phrase son of God to mean something totally different than what Christians mean, such as David being a son of God or Israel being God's first born son. But an ONLY BEGOTTEN son? No such thing.

You are welcome to document your idea with examples from the Tanakh. Not the NT. That wouldn't matter to the discussion. We already know that Christianity teaches it. The question is whether Judaism teaches it.

Nope, you've got a problem, that you obviously don't recognize. What you are actually saying, is that a Being, who seems like deity, isn't deity. Of course you don't believe that, however, that is the way it is.

So, 'gospels', or whatever, aside, it doesn't answer that. You believe it does, Jesus is a normal Rabbi to you, so forth. However, that only works if one has your belief.

You can say the gospels, so forth, are made up, it doesn't change that theological inference.

•••
So, no, doesn't answer that aspect of theology.

 

[Desert Snake]

Different ways to answer that, and you shouldn't presume that I believe the Bible can have no mistakes.

That being said, with translations, etc, the text is a comparitive parallel, or inerrant in some christians belief.

Again, none of that answers the theological question.

Your estimation of Jesus, and other ideas, isn't going to work.

You need a new argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

No matter what the new testament says, it doesn't refute "Jesus", being an aspect of deity, or being deity.

Even if there was an entire book in the NT, "explaining" why Jesua isn't deity, it wouldn't refute that inference. Even if the new testament was considered entirely fiction, it wouldn't refute, or explain that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Now, that being said, we have gone into the realm of complex matters. Because, ultimately, Jesua is associated with the NT, [even though He's considered the Lord.
Hence, we go into theology, and delineation.

•••
Just saying that yeshuah can't be deity, doesn't work, though.

 

[PruePhillip]

ecco:
Where did you get your information that anyone who believed in this theory was driven out of academies, lost tenure or had their careers destroyed?
Seriously? That's your level of separating fact from fiction? I'm not surprised.
ETA: that article or whatever was written 20 years before you were even born. What do you do? Do you implant a thought in your head and then go looking through old magazines looking for something to agree with your foregone conclusion?
But you still haven't shown whose careers were destroyed. All you have is vague memory from a non-scientific magazine from a half-century ago.
As far as "new science can be career destroying", give some examples. Stop parroting AIG. Think for yourself.

The Readers Digest was compared to the statements of the 1960's and 1970's Anti Vietnam War
"peace movement" on a case by case basis. The RD got it right more often than did the American
intelligentsia.
The account of the bitter battle over "Continental Drift" before the discovery of "sea floor spreading"
is of historic note. It wasn't fabricated. It happened and the RD did a story on it like other publications
did.

It absolutely true that you stick your neck out in academia or science and you could get chopped.
Research shows that established figures in science set back the progress of science, even though
these figures are utterly credible. Examples include Einstein's attack on quantum mechanics, A
favorite of mine was Dan Schechtman who was ridiculed by the twice Nobel laureate Linus Pauling
for DISCOVERING "quasi crystals." Not theorizing these crystals, actually finding them. Pauling
said something to the effect "There's no quasi crystals, only quasi scientists." Could have been the
end of Schechtman, but he persisted.

We had one guy here in Australia who lost his position at a university for challenging findings on the
Great Barrier Reef and another lecturer who questioned Australia's approach to Global Warming.
Both currently in the news.

Surprised that this surprises you.

 

[PruePhillip]

What theory? Are you referring to neutrinos? Please stop making silly assertions without providing any information on what you're talking about.

Don't know where I read it.
but this is relevant
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Did quark matter strike Earth?

though not what I was looking for.
Tonight I have had to find material on life forming on land
and examples of career destroying science. I don't have
the time.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If you are reading from a book it is hearsay?

noun: hearsay
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

Then all you read in school are hearsay or everything you read are hearsay!

YES - unless it can be substantiated beyond just the reading, you're correct.

So, the best example of "verifiable hearsay" would be something like the acceleration value of gravity written within a physics textbook. There it is, written in the book, and you could take it at face value - which, for most purposes, would be fine, because that value has been established and used by the scientific community for hundreds of years. However - you are ABLE TO VERIFY THE VALUE FOR YOURSELF using simple experimentation.

Another example of not-so-strong, but still somewhat verifiable hearsay would be something written in a psychology textbook. There it is, and you read some method of helping a person overcome some past problem or trauma in their lives, and you could just accept that this method "works" - but does it really? And in all cases? Probably not 100% - and a textbook like that will likely tell you so.

So yes - what you read is hearsay unless it is backed with the promise of more substantial evidence and accounting. History books included - though much of our modern recorded history is so recent that there are people still alive who have been able to corroborate the texts and we can then pass that knowledge, or video footage, or artifacts on to the next generation via museums and the like.

I know you expected me to heavily object to your idea... so I am sorry to disappoint. It just so happens that religiously based hearsay (again - THAT'S WHAT IT IS) has A LOT LESS going for it in terms of verifiability, verifiable artifacts or even eye-witness accounts from yet-living participants (which still isn't strong evidence by itself anyway).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What on earth makes you think it does come as a surprise to me?

I admit I jumped the gun there... maybe not to you. But certainly to plenty of other believers - people I have personally spoken with, who are simply amazed to encounter a person who doesn't believe in God. They are literally blown away - it's the funniest thing. So yes, sorry to lump you in with that sort - I'm not trying to embarrass you.

 

[MJFlores]

YES - unless it can be substantiated beyond just the reading, you're correct.

So, the best example of "verifiable hearsay" would be something like the acceleration value of gravity written within a physics textbook. There it is, written in the book, and you could take it at face value - which, for most purposes, would be fine, because that value has been established and used by the scientific community for hundreds of years. However - you are ABLE TO VERIFY THE VALUE FOR YOURSELF using simple experimentation.

Another example of not-so-strong, but still somewhat verifiable hearsay would be something written in a psychology textbook. There it is, and you read some method of helping a person overcome some past problem or trauma in their lives, and you could just accept that this method "works" - but does it really? And in all cases? Probably not 100% - and a textbook like that will likely tell you so.

So yes - what you read is hearsay unless it is backed with the promise of more substantial evidence and accounting. History books included - though much of our modern recorded history is so recent that there are people still alive who have been able to corroborate the texts and we can then pass that knowledge, or video footage, or artifacts on to the next generation via museums and the like.

I know you expected me to heavily object to your idea... so I am sorry to disappoint. It just so happens that religiously based hearsay (again - THAT'S WHAT IT IS) has A LOT LESS going for it in terms of verifiability, verifiable artifacts or even eye-witness accounts from yet-living participants (which still isn't strong evidence by itself anyway).

YES - unless it can be substantiated beyond just the reading, you're correct.

So, the best example of "verifiable hearsay" would be something like the acceleration value of gravity written within a physics textbook. There it is, written in the book, and you could take it at face value - which, for most purposes, would be fine, because that value has been established and used by the scientific community for hundreds of years. However - you are ABLE TO VERIFY THE VALUE FOR YOURSELF using simple experimentation.

Another example of not-so-strong, but still somewhat verifiable hearsay would be something written in a psychology textbook. There it is, and you read some method of helping a person overcome some past problem or trauma in their lives, and you could just accept that this method "works" - but does it really? And in all cases? Probably not 100% - and a textbook like that will likely tell you so.

So yes - what you read is hearsay unless it is backed with the promise of more substantial evidence and accounting. History books included - though much of our modern recorded history is so recent that there are people still alive who have been able to corroborate the texts and we can then pass that knowledge, or video footage, or artifacts on to the next generation via museums and the like.

I know you expected me to heavily object to your idea... so I am sorry to disappoint. It just so happens that religiously based hearsay (again - THAT'S WHAT IT IS) has A LOT LESS going for it in terms of verifiability, verifiable artifacts or even eye-witness accounts from yet-living participants (which still isn't strong evidence by itself anyway).

I think those words have shades of arrogance.
Verify the Big Bang then. Oh don't forget your space suit.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think those words have shades of arrogance.
Verify the Big Bang then. Oh don't forget your space suit.

I don't need to verify the "Big Bang" - doing so or not doing so does not affect my life and livelihood. I don't care about the "Big Bang" - nor do I necessarily believe in it as it is put forth by "science." I understand what the scientists say about it... I understand that they have facts and figures under their belts, and a heck of a lot more knowledge than I do - but again - it doesn't matter if I accept the Big Bang or not - and I know and fully acknowledge that scientists don't truly understand whatever "the event" that they are trying to model and provide evidence for even was. I don't care about the "Big Bang." To me... IT IS HEARSAY.

You bark up so many wrong trees it is ridiculous. Don't you get tired? I mean... did you even see that last animated GIF you included on this post? Trying to imply that I have some fetish with the "Big Bang." You have no idea what you're saying most of the time, do you? Well? Do you?

 

[MJFlores]

I don't need to verify the "Big Bang" - doing so or not doing so does not affect my life and livelihood. I don't care about the "Big Bang" - nor do I necessarily believe in it as it is put forth by "science." I understand what the scientists say about it... I understand that they have facts and figures under their belts, and a heck of a lot more knowledge than I do - but again - it doesn't matter if I accept the Big Bang or not - and I know and fully acknowledge that scientists don't truly understand whatever "the event" that they are trying to model and provide evidence for even was. I don't care about the "Big Bang." To me... IT IS HEARSAY.

You bark up so many wrong trees it is ridiculous. Don't you get tired? I mean... did you even see that last animated GIF you included on this post? Trying to imply that I have some fetish with the "Big Bang." You have no idea what you're saying most of the time, do you? Well? Do you?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is my favorite reply of yours. Nothing but an animated GIF. Of course. I will take this to mean that you are fresh out of ideas as to how to reply to me because I have broken the mold of what you expected an atheist to be - and in doing so, I broke your brain. Your post of this animated GIF was probably an accident, which happened when your brain exploded, your motor functions stopped responding, and your forehead hit the keyboard and rolled off to the side, striking all sorts of keys and selecting some random GIF from the apparently limitless stores of them you seem to have within arms reach at all times. Don't worry, I've called an ambulance for you, and do not expect you to respond to this post. Get better @MJFlores.

 

[MJFlores]

This is my favorite reply of yours. ...., I broke your brain. .... when your brain exploded, your motor functions stopped responding, ..... Don't worry, I've called an ambulance for you, and do not expect you to respond to this post. Get better @MJFlores.

Proverbs 23:9