There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[lukethethird]

Please try to understand:

- I am not trying to persuade anyone to accept my beliefs.
- I did not already believe the conclusion 'God exists' before I accepted the premise 'Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.'
- The premise 'Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God' provided the evidence that supported the conclusion 'God exists.'
- I was an atheist before I believed that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

Of course, the premise needed to be proven to me before I accepted that it was true. That is a given, since the premise has to be true in order for the conclusion to be true.

-Don't worry, you couldn't persuade anyone to accept your beliefs if you tried.

 

[Colt]

The old King James at Psalm 83:18 B does Not say God's name is Truth, but surely God's name (YHWH) stands for Truth ( religious truth )

Yahweh was the nature God of the Sini volcano. The Israelites adopted the name during their stay in the region.

 

[Brian2]

There is NO secular historical evidence for Jesus, son of God or the apostles, period. Despite all the propaganda Christians put forth about there being so much evidence for Jesus in the historical record, it is just disinformation disguised as truth to keep Christianity afloat. The truth is there simply is no secular historical evidence an avatar god man named Jesus as described in the gospels ever lived--nor did the 12 men he supposedly gathered around him and walked with them for 3 years before being crucified. NONE of this is supported by historical fact. No historian mentions all the supernatural events that the gospels claim occurred after Christ's supposed crucifixion, even though the Gospels claim Jesus' fame spread far beyond the borders of Israel. There may be a possibility an ordinary man who was a Jewish zealot was crucified by the Romans for sedition against Rome but again no historian mentions one.

The two passages by Josephus so often cited by Christians as mentioning Jesus are so mired in controversy that they are dismissed by mainstream historians as having little to no value in trying to prove Jesus existed. Here are some pertinent facts that Christians should consider before they try to pass off these passages as proof of Jesus:

* The Testimonium Flavianum is never quoted by anyone until the 4th century (c. 324), when Bishop Eusebius begins quoting it. Scholars believe it was Eusebius who doctored the passage with references to Jesus' supernatural nature.

* It is impossible that this passage is entirely genuine. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a Jew working in concert with the Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

* Josephus is on record that the Emperor Vespasian was the messiah and had fulfilled prophecy.

* The second passage of Josephus, "The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.” is a scribal interpolation. There are several indications that the sentence fragment “who was called Christ” was not original to the text.

Here is a link to some research that will help to clear up the controversy surrounding the Josephus passages:

Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

The gospels were NOT written by the apostles or anyone connected to Jesus or the fictional apostles. The gospels were written 50-100 years after Jesus purportedly was crucified in 30 AD by anonymous Greek scholars who couldn't have known Jesus and certainly were not familiar with Israel's geographic terrain as evidenced by the numerous errors they made about towns' proximity to each other and to other natural terrain. The Romans were excellent record keepers of their trials but a trial of Jesus ben Joseph or similar name who was crucified under Pilate's order simply doesn't exist. The name Yeshua ben Joseph or Yeshua Moshiach (Jesus Christ) doesn't appear anywhere in the historical record. A few historians like Tacitus made reference to a man referred to as "Chrestus" but we have no idea who that is nor can we know or reasonably ascertain if they were referring to Jesus, the son of God or another Chrestus who had a following. What we Do know is that Christians are constantly trying to pass off this passage and similar ones using the term, "Christ" as proof secular historians mention Jesus. But they don't. There were dozens of "Christs" in Jesus' time. Any of them could lay claim to being the Messiah.

If God had wanted us to believe Jesus is his divine son sent to earth to die for our sins, God would have left a mountain of evidence proving this that would be so compelling that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise.

But God left no such compelling evidence. The proof for this fact is truth No 1 above. That would mean the Christian god, if he even exists, doesn't give a tinker's damn whether or not we believe in Jesus. God, if he exists, shows himself to not interfere or participate in human affairs. Thus, he could not have left any evidence for this Jesus fellow and this is exactly what we see in the secular historic record--NO mention of Jesus or the apostles.

An unassailable truth: prayers do not get answered, in contrast to what Jesus promises in the gospels. Millions upon millions of people pray every day for their sick loved ones to get well and their loved ones do not recover. If a person recovers it is usually on the order of 10% and here is the key thing: it occurs across all demographics with the SAME rate of frequency. Thus, a small percentage of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists all recover from serious illness at exactly the same rate. This proves without a doubt that praying to God has nothing to do with it; some humans are going to recover from their illness but ALL terminally ill people are going to die at some point in the near future. No one is cured as a result of prayer. Study after study has borne this fact out.

There is no reason for people to believe in Jesus as the savior son of God when we haven't a single entry in the secular historic record testifying that he is. People who choose to believe in Jesus as their savior are doing so in ignorance of all the above, or they are doing it on pure faith without any evidence for Jesus. It's a crying shame that people can throw their lives away so carelessly for a myth, but it's a free country and people are permitted to squander their lives on anything they want, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

View attachment 77669

Have you any evidence that the writers of the gospels did not know the geography of Israel?
Paul lived when Jesus was alive and wrote shortly after Jesus died and studied in Jerusalem around the time Jesus was there. He would have known whether Jesus actually lived or not. Nobody in their right mind could argue otherwise. But people do.

 

[Windwalker]

Scientific theory is a body of facts, and if a given fact turns out to be false it is ejected from theory.

As I said, a scientific theory is an explanatory model of the data or the facts as we have them, they may also incorporate hypothesis. But it is improper to say that a scientific theory is a statement of fact, even if it references facts. It is a model explaining the data.

There are no facts concerning gods, people can believe all manor of things and it is well understood that people can believe a falsehood, or reject a truth.

But as I asked, what on earth does that mean that there are no facts concerning gods? We have plenty of facts about what they are. People believe in them. So you have objects of belief which people call gods. That is fact #1. You also have people reporting to have mystical encounters with these gods. So there is phenomenological data concerning them. That is fact #2. And we could continue. So yes, there is data there. It's not nothing that cannot be looked at and considered from an objective perspective.

Whether or not you consider their ideas about these things to be true or false is besides the point. Whether or not these are corporeal or fictional, doesn't matter either. We can in fact make statements about gods, and we therefore can look at them and consider what they might be.

The human experience can be explained using natural terms

It can also be explained using poetic terms. Who's to say which is the best? Isn't that ultimately a subjective point of view either way?

, invoking the supernatural to explain the human experience is a falsehood and only results in question begging simply because there are no facts as regards to the so called supernatural, beliefs notwithstanding.

What may be false in one context, may be true in another.

 

[Windwalker]

I'd have better luck believing that the brick wall could transform my life than I ever had believing that God would transform my life.

Perhaps you might have had better luck if you would have created that belief on your own terms, and that was kind of my point. I'd have to better explain what I meant hidden in that statement though.

If you knew my story, then you'd understand why I said this. I wasted the majority of my life believing in God, having faith in God, and praying to God.

I'm sure I can relate to it in many ways myself. What I was told to believe was true, ultimately didn't work for me. I used to berate myself for having 'wasted my time' believing those ways and trying to make them work. I'd probably have to do a whole separate thread, or at least a chapter of book to detail all that.

But one thing I've come to now is that it really wasn't a waste of time, as it taught me what did work and what did not work. At least I kept moving forward, as opposed to just freezing in fear of the unknown, doubling down, and becoming a 'true believer' afraid to face uncertainty in pursuit of what is true for me.

A little over two years ago, there came a point in my life when I was finally honest with myself and acknowledged that if there is a God, he obviously has no interest in helping me, or else there is no God and everything I believed was in vain. For 40 years, I believed in God, had faith in God, and prayed to God. It took me 40 years to finally come to my senses and admit that I was a fool to believe in God as I did. It was a hard lesson to learn, and it was even more difficult to let it go.

That's kind of the time frame for me as well, but in a different 'lesson', if you will. It was about that long ago that I rejected the fundamentalist view of God when both life's reality and my rational mind could no longer sincerely believe that way. That led to a period of trying to find a softer more mainline way, which didn't work either for its own reasons.

That then led to a period of 'agnosticism' or not really certain what to think about it anymore. Then eventually that led to full out atheism, which had both positive and less than ultimately useful ideas of its own as teachers to my own path. That then led to seeing beyond atheism and beyond religion into more where I am today which can see all of these things from multiple perspectives as each 'true but partial' in their own rights.

And yes, letting go of those earlier modes of thinking about God or "ultimate reality' or the 'absolute', is not an easy thing to do. I find myself even now, nearly 40 years later still untangling those ideas that have their hooks in there from before, like a vine wrapping itself around certain neural pathways in my mind. It's a long and complex process to unlearn and reprogram, to be sure.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Have you any evidence that the writers of the gospels did not know the geography of Israel?
Paul lived when Jesus was alive and wrote shortly after Jesus died and studied in Jerusalem around the time Jesus was there. He would have known whether Jesus actually lived or not. Nobody in their right mind could argue otherwise. But people do.

People who make comments should know what they are talking about, wouldn't you agree, Brian? Paul had nothing to do with writing the gospels.

But to your question:

"Much has been said about Mark’s poor knowledge of the geography of Palestine. A classic case is his bizarre itinerary for Jesus leaving Tyre to go north, then south-east, then back east again, to reach is final destination. On the map here, locate Tyre, run your finger north to Sidon, then let it wander to the right and downwards till it reaches Decapolis, then zero up to the “lake” of Galilee."

Naturally apologists will make excuses and cover up the errors with nonsensical explanations for why Jesus, to get south, went north.

 

[Windwalker]

If you have some facts on any gods, we're all ears.

People believe in them. We have stories about them. People have mystical experiences where they are part of them. There's lots of fact about gods. Here's a wiki article that talks about them. There's lots of information about them. Deity - Wikipedia

Perhaps you mean to ask do we have confirmable scientific proofs about gods being literally what the stories about them say are true? That's a entirely different question, and a rather silly one at that.

 

[F1fan]

You're missing the context and flow of my conversation in this thread. It's OK, no problem, I'll get you caught up. It's not long.

The OP has come to challenge the claim made by others, not made by me, that there is historical evidence of the gospel Jesus. Yes, including the miracles. The objection raised is that those who make that claim rely mostly on the bible, and then confirm that reliance on a misunderstanding of what it means when historians claim there is evidence for the historical Jesus. Those who are claiming there is evidence of the gospels confuse, or ignore, that these are two different Jesuses.

This isn't new or unique to this forum.

My observation is, that the counter-accusation

Well, there's no accusation against anyone. The issue is one claim versus another claim. The claim that the Gosvels are true at face value falls flat on a number of issues, but the big one is the supernatural elements. There's no known suvernatural phenomenon known to exist, so anyone making a suvernatural claim will have to demonstrate that it exists. At the very least they need to show SOME supernaturalism happens, or there are effects in nature that are better explained by supernatural causes. These are attempted, but fail. Theists have the bad habit of assuming religious texts are divine, and that's an assumption rejected in critical thought.

"It's all a lie" based on the myth-ranking of Jesus is equally erroneous, because the individual points in the ranking are not actually describing Jesus, but can be mis-read, and misinterpretted in the same way that a person misreads and misunderstands "historical Jesus" as being evidence for "gospel Jesus".

I don't see critical thinkers calling it a lie. The lie would be any believer who aserts the Jesus myth is true at face value, and they can't prove it. So this is a strawman.

My claim is NOT that there is evidence for the gospel Jesus. My claim is that the conclusion reached due to the lack of evidence is an over-reaction. And evidence in support of this, is the obvious misunderstanding of the myth-ranking criteria when evaluating gospel Jesus.

Well you aren't arguing against critical thinkers, you are arguing against the rules of logic. In logic any claim is by default untrue UNTIL evidence is offered that demonstrated the claim is true, or at least likely true. Critical thinkers are just following the rules of logic and debate, and the reason is because this offers a reliable path to truth. So critical thinkers aren't concluding that the Jesus myth is untrue, it's the logical starting point. And how is this an over-reaction? You don't explain your judgment there. What better approach do you suggest?

Now, these similarities between Jesus and the egyptian stories and the pagans seem minor to me. I haven't spent a lot of time on them. But essentially it's casting a very wide net, and finding a few similarities in the vast number of stories. That's not meaningful. It's just law of averages.

Whether minor or major it hurts the already fantastic claims. Occam's Razor says the story about Jesus is likely embellished, and there needs to be a massive amount of evidence to support it. There simply isn't any. Then on top of that there are older stories that look similar to the Jesus myth, which suggests copying. This isn't new or unique in the Bible, as the Noah flood myth is likely a copy of Gilgamesh. Unless there is some sort of explanation that Egyptian and pagan lore could not influence the Jesus myth (which there isn't since the two cultures were known to exist in the Middle East in that era) we have to consider this is the basis for the Jesus myth. Critical thinkers understand we can't ignore evidence. Theists are notorious for ignoring counter evidence to their beliefs, and this is a huge error.

Back when we had phone books, if I looked long enough, I'd find someone with my own exact name. That doesn't mean that my name was given to that other person for the same reason. It's the same with the Jesus story. If you keep looking through all the myths, there are going to be similarities. Just because those other stories might be false, and were written for a specific purpose, whatever that purpose was, that does not mean that the Jesus story is false and as authored for the same purpose, to be a myth.

This is a weak point. If your name is Jesse James we aren't going to confuse you with the outlaw. The outlaw actually existed, and you actually exist, same names, no confusion, so dispute whether the original Jesse James did miracles and came back to life after being killed. And you wouldn't fear getting arrested for bank robberies because the police follow evidence, and the evidence is adequate that makes it impossible for you to be the same Jesse James as the criminal. See the advantage of following facts?

Many ancient religions and lore had immortal gods, and elelments common with other gods. We have to consider each myth for what it is and how it affected other versions.

These are called coincidences. If a skeptic begins believing in coincidences, then they have lost their skepticism.

It could be coincidence that Egyptians and pagans had similar beliefs to the eventual Jesus myth. When we examine all of these none are any more credible or likely true since the evidence just isn't sufficient.

Makes more sense to you, based on your own self-imposed need for evidence for everything. There doesn't need evidence for an idea to make sense.

Yeah, if you claimed to eat a ham sandwich for lunch I will take your word for it. If you claim to be God, well, that I will need evidence for. Can you see the difference in these two claims? The more fantastic a claim the more evidence needed.

A person starts with an idea, and then logically moves from step to step, arriving at a conclusion. If the conclusion has explanatory power, and none of the steps leading to the conclusion are known false, and if each step is consistent and relevant, then the original premise "makes sense" and could have merit. Historians do this all the time.

And you have to start without assuming your conclusion is true.

Generally your arguments in this context are equally vacuous. They can be summarized as "what else could it be?" Basically an unanswered question elevated, improperly, into evidence.

False, I defer to Occam's Razor since religious claims both lack plausibility, and lack evidence. What do you expect us to do?

Non-sense. The truth is, "it's unknown". And I accept that, no problem. And the critics-creed is exactly what happens 'round here everyday. Most often the bible-critic denies, never admits anything, never actually applies critical thinking to their own position, demands evidence for everything then concludes without evidence it MUST be false. And then conjures up some other outrageous counter accusation: Jesus is a mythical hero like Hercules.

Arguably the Jesus of the myth is in the same fictional category as any Greek hero you care to name, or Santa, or Hobbits. There's nothing offensive about this.

But the critic believes they are so smart, and they are so critical that no one can fool them. But they forget that they are infact fooling themselves. These people, yourself included, most often came from Christian backgrounds, and they have traded one set of exaggerated beliefs for another.

This sounds like sour grapes. Many theists are upset that critical thinkers are critical thinkers. It's like being upset that a dog doesn't act like a cat.

For you, it's "My experience with Christianity was X,Y,Z, therefore ALL Christians and all religions with anything in common don't do A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H..... correctly or at all".

Should my observations and thinking be based on someone elses experience? Do your values and beliefs get guided by other people, or your perspective? Your comment here sounds like more your greivance than a fault of mine.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Excellent! You have now proven my point. The very fact that Ehman acknowledges these things, yet he rejects this notion that Jesus never existed, proves my point! Thank you.

As I said, citing that fact does not mean that Jesus never existed. Yet that is what you claim. Bart Ehrman, as a secular, non-religious, agnostic scholar, an expert in the field unlike you, accepts that Jesus did really exist, despite there not be any external secular sources who cite him. In other words, that is not the only reason for accepting Jesus was a real person, that does not entail drinking the Kool Aid of religious faith. If you want to understand his basis for why he believes he existed, and folks like Price and other mythicists are wrong, read his books.

Additionally, scholars that I refer to who offer sound reasons for why Jesus did exist historically, outside the realm of a matter of religious faith, accepting for secular historical reasons, I'd direct you to my favorite author, and the one of the top scholars on the historical Jesus, and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar (which conservative and fundamentalist groups hate), read John Dominic Crossan.

As I said, your citing there are no external references, is not a valid basis for denying Jesus ever existed. That is a fringe, and not well supported opinion among both religious and secular scholars. Have I made my point now?

Not sure whether you missed my question or whether you ignored it, but I'll run it by you just on the chance you missed it:

Does Ehrman acknowledge the existence of the miracle-working Jesus, son of God born of a virgin who caused a great darkness to ascend on the earth for 3 hours at his death and rose from the dead 3 days later?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Well you aren't arguing against critical thinkers, you are arguing against the rules of logic. In logic any claim is by default untrue UNTIL evidence is offered that demonstrated the claim is true, or at least likely true. Critical thinkers are just following the rules of logic and debate, and the reason is because this offers a reliable path to truth. So critical thinkers aren't concluding that the Jesus myth is untrue, it's the logical starting point. And how is this an over-reaction? You don't explain your judgment there. What better approach do you suggest?

...

Critical thinkers know that even logic and evidence have a limit and there are 3 positions.
With evidence/logic true.
With evidence/logic false.
Unknown.

As for Ockham's Razor that is a cognitive rule in the end.

So what if truth and evidence have limits?
Or is it that it gives you anxiety to consider that and you can't handle that? Are you in effect emotional immature?

 

[Windwalker]

You appear to have been taking her comments too literally.

I say this all the time about atheists commenting that gods are not facts.

 

[Windwalker]

Let's clear up a potential misunderstanding here, Wind. One yes/no questions please and then I'll get to the rest of your post:

Does Ehrman acknowledge the existence of the miracle-working Jesus, son of God born of a virgin who caused a great darkness to ascend on the earth for 3 hours at his death and rose from the dead 3 days later?

No, and neither do I. But both he and I and a lot of both religious and secular scholars don't have a problem believing there is evidential reasons to believe that Jesus was a real historical person that gave rise to the mythologies about him.

My entire point has been that your argument that there is no contemporaneous authors who speaks of him, therefore means he never existed is not a valid claim at all. Do you get my point yet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I say this all the time about atheists commenting that gods are not facts.

Both she and you messed up the claim should scientific theories. Her claim about gods should have been that there is not any reliable evidence for gods. Oh, and theories explain facts.

 

[Windwalker]

Right, because we can't determine there is anything that exists outside of nature.

No, that's not really true. The reason science does not study things outside of the material physical world is because it's the wrong set of tools. Not that it is not possible for humans to explore these domains.

It's like saying, I'm going to use geology to try to understand Shakespeare. Say what?? But we certainly can gain insight into Shakespeare without the use of science, can't we?

The funny thing is that if a God exists it would be subject to examination, but thus far God/gods are in the category of imaginary beings.

But what do you think mystical experiences are actually doing? Experience is data. We can examine the data. In a very broad sense of doing science, we can actually look at and compare the collected data of human experiences and draw rational conclusions about them.

However, if you want to know what an orange tastes like, you don't read scientific studies on oranges. You actually have to peel one and put it into your mouth and taste it experientially to know it from a personal experience perspective.

You didn't explain what was trascendent, so I made the point that science does move humanity from ignorance to knowledge, which is transcendent in a real way.

I thought the context explained I wasn't talking about transcendent ideas. I was talking about transcending conceptual realities altogether. I was talking about immersing oneself within the Ocean, not conceptualizing about the Ocean. Transcending reality as the mind conceives it to be, in other words.

Because gods are in the same category as other imaginary characters, like the Tooth Fairy, and they aren't subject to science either.

Hardly the case. However, if you want to argue that they are comparable because they both entail the use of the imagination, then let's make that a spectrum of imagination and see where they land upon that.

First all of our perceptions of reality are in fact imaginary. They are mental constructs. Yes, those mental constructs have for the most part actual material referents, but not all of course. There are also immaterial referents, such as ideals, values, plus emotional, and spiritual experiences. But all of what we think about those, are mental constructions of what they are, models, frameworks, and so forth. Therefore ALL of that, is the imagination. All of our ideas about what makes up reality to us, are products of the imagination.

Now, for most people that idea causes a mental shortcircuit. "But it IS reality!!". No, it really isn't. What it is is yours and mine and everyone else's shared constructs that make it a common illusory, or imaginary reality. It is the experience of our own mind.

So now on that spectrum of imaginary reality, we are really dealing more with what has utility in a functional way. If the status quo is that tooth fairies don't add value, then they are considered frivolous. But to a child in a child's world, tooth fairies have a more functional reality for perhaps psychological reasons, developing the wings of active imagination in early childhood development, for instance.

So while to a functioning adult trying to run a multi-million dollar business, a tooth fairy believe is not a good fit functionally, to a child using the imagination to a business strategist doesn't work either. It's all about appropriate context.

Now take this to the question of gods, or God. Yes, our ideas about God are also on that spectrum of imagination, right along with the tooth fairy, and right along with our scientific ideas of realities as well. Everything, including the tooth fairy have some referent in the reality of the perceiver. So too does the gods. What is the referent, the higher, or transcendent sense of self, of course!

So in engaging the imagination towards "God", it engages those parts of ourselves which open us up through the imagination towards higher states of being, or of consciousness itself. This is the utility of "god beliefs". Archetypal forms. Through the imagination, we are able to access something in ourselves beyond ourselves in our otherwise complacent place in the illusory comforts of our mental constructs we call reality.

You may have to spend some time trying to unpack that, but by all means ask questions if that doesn't make sense.

Does that make the Tooth Fairy special? No, and nor are gods.

Yes, they are special, in ways I just explained. Take this statement for instance to underscore what I just said about Archetypal forms and how it has a transformative effect on us, through the imagination:

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. John Blofeld quotes Edward Conze on the Vajrayana Buddhist viewpoint: " 'It is the emptiness of everything which allows the identification to take place - the emptiness [which means "transcendental openness" or "nonobstruction"] which is in us coming together with the emptiness which is the deity. By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate' ". At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."​

​

~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85​

There is a lot of cultural power in the popularity of gods, but being objective means understanding why this is, and dismissing it.

What I am talking about is objective. But it is a better objective understanding than the dismissive "it's just the brain and not reality" nearsightedness.

It's related to the fallacy of argument by popularity. Critical thinkers follow the evidence, and reason based on what the evidence dictates.

Indeed. I am a critical thinker, and I am looking at the larger picture, and not just the myopic reductionist imagination of reality.

To assume a God, and a purpose via a God, is nothing more that a guess, there are no facts.

That is untrue. I personally have experienced the Absolute, which I could call God, at the least. And that experience comports with others who report the exact same thing. So there is a real, experiential, profound and transcendent reality that creates a common referent.

It's like how you can relate to others who describe the experience of love. You know it's real, not just because you've experienced it yourself, but you hear others describe it in the same ways you do. That's not nothing. That's something. That's an actual objective referent. That makes it factual.

Now how we talk about that, will of course vary because of the nature of language and personal individualities, but that's not really different than anything else in life, is it?

This is why science can't examine these, the lack of facts.

There are facts, and there are studies that have in fact been done about spiritual experiences. Quite a good number of them.

Humans believe all sorts of irrational things and science can't invesigate the imagined.

My experience, and the direct experience of others is not a 'belief' nor is it irrational. What I try to say about it, is a product of the imagination trying to put language to it, but that's true of anything about anything really. I may have certain beliefs about my experience, but beliefs and experience are two different things.

Science can't study the biology of Mickey Mouse. Don't you want to know how Mickey talks?

You really want to try to say that someone opening up the Absolute, have an immersion in Emptiness, or Nirvana, is comparable to Mickey Mouse? I seriously doubt you're that ignorant about these things.

I'll try to maybe address a few more points later about the other points raised, but this is the bulk of it.

 

[Windwalker]

Both she and you messed up the claim should scientific theories. Her claim about gods should have been that there is not any reliable evidence for gods. Oh, and theories explain facts.

I was pointing out that that her comments were wrong on both accounts. You've just affirmed what I was saying, pointing out she messed up. Correct. Thank you. The rest was just me merely responding to what she said. Yes, I understand that scientific theories are explanatory models about facts, as well as hypothesis. I said just that in correcting her.

Regarding the gods, again though, what do we mean by "evidence for gods"?
What facts have about gods are things like that they are part of human cultures, that they play roles in human societies and cultural evolution, as well as psychological effects, and so forth. These are all facts about gods, and as such can be areas of study.

But if we mean are they literally what the stories about them say? How is that rational to use science to make mythologies scientific?? That's a category error, and using the wrong tools of investigation, like using geology to read Shakespeare. To me, that's irrationality, not critical thinking at all. So we need to be clear what we are specifically looking to mean here.

 

[F1fan]

No, that's not really true.

How is my statement (Right, because we can't determine there is anything that exists outside of nature.) not true? Are you saying that we CAN determine there is anything outside of nature? Note that I'm not asking if people believe there are things outside of nature, I'm asking about knowing, which means facts.

The reason science does not study things outside of the material physical world is because it's the wrong set of tools. Not that it is not possible for humans to explore these domains.

What tools do humans have that can determine things existing outside of nature? Or are there none and your comment is deceptive in implying there are such tools?

These kinds of comments by theists are probelmatic because they make an assertion and just leave it hanging without any facts or expalnations, as if it is a subtle bluff that is hoped will be accepted.

It's like saying, I'm going to use geology to try to understand Shakespeare. Say what?? But we certainly can gain insight into Shakespeare without the use of science, can't we?

Bad analogy because Shakespear's works actuaslly exist, unlike things outside of nature. You use an analogy instead of facts for a reason, you have no facts, and the analogy is invalid on top of that.

 

[Windwalker]

How is my statement (Right, because we can't determine there is anything that exists outside of nature.) not true?

I thought my following sentences in that post would make clear the context I was speaking of. Typically when someone calls down science as the final arbiter of truth, they are speaking of nature as the physical material world. My point was to show that science hardly is able to speak to domains beyond that. We use other means to penetrate our understanding of non-physical reality all the time. So can we understand the nature of the Transcendent, or God without science? The answer is a definitely yes!

Of course, I see all it both what we call 'nature' and the 'supernatural' as ultimately the same thing. We just use those conventions to speak of what seems commonplace to us as "nature" and what seems extraordinary as "supernatural". I personally don't care for those terms. It's both natural and supernatural, and neither. The entire ball of wax is Divine, or Reality with a capital R, both the sacred and the mundane, both the religious and the scientific.

Are you saying that we CAN determine there is anything outside of nature?

I am saying that we can determine things to be true that science cannot penetrate with its limited perceptions and toolsets. Yes.

Note that I'm not asking if people believe there are things outside of nature, I'm asking about knowing, which means facts.

Yes, we can determine that certain things are objectively and practically real and true using other means than the empiric sciences. Certainly.

What tools do humans have that can determine things existing outside of nature?

Again, if by "nature' you mean a physicalist materialist only reality, then the answer becomes easy. For understand things like Shakespeare or human relationships, we use the eye of the mind, or hermeneutics. For spiritual concerns, we use the eye of spirit, or the contemplative, mediative introspective eye. We know our Self, through a direct firsthand apprehension, much the way we look at the moons of jupiter using the eye of a telescope.

Or are there none and your comment is deceptive in implying there are such tools?

No, there are tools indeed. It's just that the tools of the empiric sciences are not the definitive, end all be all tools of human knowledge of what is the true, the good, and the beautiful.

These kinds of comments by theists are probelmatic because they make an assertion and just leave it hanging without any facts or expalnations, as if it is a subtle bluff that is hoped will be accepted.

I aim to explain. But I also aim to challenge.

Bad analogy because Shakespear's works actuaslly exist, unlike things outside of nature.

Not really. Words on paper exist. But they have no content or meaning as just those. But the meaning of the words, is entirely a matter of meaning making using the eye of the mind, not the eye of flesh, or the empiric analytic sciences.

So the basic tools for understanding truth and reality, are the eye of the flesh, or the eye of the mind, or the eye of the spirit. All three interact and interpenetrate. And not one can or should dominate the whole human experience. It takes all three (or five if you include the directions these take, such as flesh to flesh or sensorimotor, or mind to flesh, or empiric-analytic, etc.)

You use an analogy instead of facts for a reason, you have no facts, and the analogy is invalid on top of that.

It is perfectly valid. You just didn't understand the context in which I was trying to speak.

 

[lukethethird]

As I said, a scientific theory is an explanatory model of the data or the facts as we have them, they may also incorporate hypothesis. But it is improper to say that a scientific theory is a statement of fact, even if it references facts. It is a model explaining the data.

But as I asked, what on earth does that mean that there are no facts concerning gods? We have plenty of facts about what they are. People believe in them. So you have objects of belief which people call gods. That is fact #1. You also have people reporting to have mystical encounters with these gods. So there is phenomenological data concerning them. That is fact #2. And we could continue. So yes, there is data there. It's not nothing that cannot be looked at and considered from an objective perspective.

Whether or not you consider their ideas about these things to be true or false is besides the point. Whether or not these are corporeal or fictional, doesn't matter either. We can in fact make statements about gods, and we therefore can look at them and consider what they might be.

It can also be explained using poetic terms. Who's to say which is the best? Isn't that ultimately a subjective point of view either way?

What may be false in one context, may be true in another.

View attachment 78088

People can believe impossible things such as gods, fairies, leprechauns, they are products of our culture and ultimately come from the imagination. There are natural explanations for our experiences no matter how bizarre they appear to be. I have experienced "God" but there is a perfectly natural explanation for what took place without any need to believe that I literally experienced an actual god., so no, there are no facts as concerning gods and that is why scientific theory rejects notions of gods. Scientific theory is only concerned with facts and consists of a body of facts, end of story.

 

[Windwalker]

People can believe impossible things such as gods, fairies, leprechauns, they are products of our culture and ultimately come from the imagination. There are natural explanations for our experiences no matter how bizarre they appear to be. I have experienced "God" but there is a perfectly natural explanation for what took place without any need to believe that I literally experienced an actual god., so no, there are no facts as concerning gods and that is why scientific theory rejects notions of gods. Scientific theory is only concerned with facts and consists of a body of facts, end of story.

You don't understand what science does, nor what gods are. Products of our culture, do in fact have real, tangible effects upon the natural world and are therefore something that can be looked at scientifically as well. It's just we are not talking about physics here. We are talking about things like psychology, and sociology, and any number of other areas of the humanities.

These are not "nothing", nor can that be merely dismissed as "imaginary". That's absurd. Everything we think about reality, is a product of the imagination, which I explained in a different post. So yes, we can speak of gods as 'facts', because they are in fact something that we can point to as part of human experience.

This has nothing to do with the trite idea that the stories about them aren't scientifically factual. That's beneath the point. To simply say something like, "Noah's Ark couldn't be possibly true scientifically, therefore God is scientifically disproven," is childish and foolish. It's irrational.

 

[lukethethird]

You don't understand what science does, nor what gods are. Products of our culture, do in fact have real, tangible effects upon the natural world and are therefore something that can be looked at scientifically as well. It's just we are not talking about physics here. We are talking about things like psychology, and sociology, and any number of other areas of the humanities.

These are not "nothing", nor can that be merely dismissed as "imaginary". That's absurd. Everything we think about reality, is a product of the imagination, which I explained in a different post. So yes, we can speak of gods as 'facts', because they are in fact something that we can point to as part of human experience.

This has nothing to do with the trite idea that the stories about them aren't scientifically factual. That's beneath the point. To simply say something like, "Noah's Ark couldn't be possibly true scientifically, therefore God is scientifically disproven," is childish and foolish. It's irrational.

Nonsense.