McBell
Admiral Obvious
Their beliefs on an event is not evidence of the event.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why don’t you believe in God?
- Thread starter Jimmy
- Start date
Their beliefs on an event is not evidence of the event.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That would be true but I think they have more than beliefs.
I believe in God, but find your 'argument from ignorance' concerning what "can't be explained by science" not meaningful. Simply unknowns about our physical existence are not meaningful concerning whether Gods existor not.
What would be meaningful that science "cannot explain other than what science cannot objectively explain?"
Last edited:
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Unknowns or things that can’t be explained by science is the very definition of god and his son in my book but to each their own.
This post confirms the lack of a meaningful argument. These unknowns would not be meaningful to science. Science simply only involves the knowledge of our physical existence.
The lack of evidence of the subjective that has no meaning for science, negates any argument for God ;arguing from ignorance.'
Last edited:
Jimmy
Veteran Member
I love science. I know it only involves the knowledge of our physical existence. However, I do think that there’s a lot more to life than just our physical existence and what science can show. Definitely learn all you can about science, I think it’s very important but I also think the things that are unseen are also important. Let’s put it this way. I don’t put all my faith and or understanding of existence in science alone where some do which is totally fine.
This OK for a basis for your belief, but not a meaningful basis for your argument.
This apparent positive view of science is potentially a problem. What is your view on the sciences of evolution?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Yes, it is the definition of the gods made up by man such as Zeus and Thor and Aphrodite etc.
Is is called the god of the gaps argument. I suggest you read about it.
God of the gaps - Wikipedia
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Evolution. I agree with it all. Big bang, abiogenesis, etc…
Greeeaat!!!!! We share some beliefs in common, but not this particular argument for the existence of God.
Last edited:
Jimmy
Veteran Member
I don’t see any gaps in scientific thinking. I think it explains the natural world quite well. But I also believe in God and his son and their existence and plan.Yes, it is the definition of the gods made up by man such as Zeus and Thor and Aphrodite etc.
Is is called the god of the gaps argument. I suggest you read about it.
God of the gaps - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Jimmy
Veteran Member
It is actually. I’ll take it even further and say that I believe that existence has always been here and always will be. I know stuff like that is beyond science, but using a logical scientific mind, that seems to be the only reasonable explanation.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
…but first and foremost, I believe in God, his son, their existence and plan.
Personally, Science isn’t my only understanding of life.
I’m able to have both in my life. Knowledge of scientific things and belief in God and his son
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Well then maybe you are not one of the numerous Christians here who insist that we don't have evidence for evolution on earth because we don't have fossils and DNA for every little change in the last billion or so years. Be careful how you state things because there are lots of gaps in our scientific understanding, but the gaps don't imply special action on a gods part even if your god is ultimately responsible for all of "nature".
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Oh, you were referring to the gaps in that big evolutionary booklet? No I didn’t even give that a thought. that’s kind of petty imo.
gnostic
The Lost One
I don’t doubt there was a person named Jesus, nor that he started the “church”, which weren’t a building of any source, but that the church were masses of local people that he preached to, during his short ministry through Galilee & Judaea...most of preaching would have occurred outdoors.
The problems are not with the sources we have now, but that there are no contemporary sources to Jesus, in his lifetime. The Pauline letters are earlier than the gospels, but Paul never witnessed the ministry, nor the crucifixion…what he knew about Jesus came from others.
The gospels were written OVER THIRTY YEARS after Jesus’ supposed crucifixion and resurrection, with the gospel of Mark being the earliest, between mid-60s and mid-70s CE. So about a generation and a half later. The gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed between mid-70 and late 80s CE, while that of John was wrItten post 90 CE. But these gospels were originally anonymously, the names that were given to these 4 gospels were only applied to these gospels during the 2nd century CE.
When I write of something being “contemporary”, then I would mean any person & events were written within a month to 5 years, with a maximum of 10 years. The more years that passed, the less reliable they are.
And there are no contemporary sources to recorded Jesus’ ministry and resurrection.
As there are no contemporary sources, the best we have, are the gospels, except much of the gospel accounts are unreliable. Especially as they were composed 30-PLUS YEARS LATER.
That would also include those early non-Christian sources - like Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus (around mid-90s CE) and the Annals by Publius Cornelius Tacitus (115 CE).
one of the things that you must understand with written history, is that if it weren’t contemporary, than these historians like Josephus and Tacitus, would have to rely on earlier sources, and as Jesus’ crucifixion were on public Roman records, we don’t really know anything about Tacitus’ source or sources.
If You have read Annals 15, then you would see the main focus were about the Christians during the reign of Nero, in 64 or 65 CE, when the fire broke out in Rome, and that Nero blamed the fire on the Christians. What Tacitus wrote about Pontius Pilate punishing a man called Christo, was merely allusion to the crucifixion event. This mentions of Jesus and Pilate is not really good to establish the historicity of gospel accounts. We certainly don’t know if Tacitus knew anything about the gospels, so where did Tacitus get his source from?
Plus it doesn’t help the fact, that Tacitus referred to Pilate as being a procurator of Judaea, not a prefectus. The governor of Judaea was a prefect during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius; no procurators were appointed to Judaea, until the reign of Claudius. There is an inscribed stone, known today as the Pilate Stone, as it recorded him to being a prefect…the stone was more contemporary than the gospels and the Annals.
A written history that were written contemporary would be far more reliable than something that were written 60 to 80 years later (Josephus & Tacitus, respectively).
For instance of a contemporary history, Josephus wrote of Romans quelling a rebellion of the Jews, that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem. As Josephus actually took part in these events, his Jewish-Roman War would consider “contemporary”…as he saw both sides of the war…as hostage and later friend of Titus (son of Vespasian). With his friendship with Titus, Josephus would have access to Roman records and sources to the war.
While Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus was recording many events that occurred before Josephus was born, so he would have relied heavily on sources that he was never eyewitness to…so he would have to rely on Jewish, Greek and Roman sources. The further back in time, the less reliable his writings are. For instance, as I said, he had access to Roman records, like when governors were appointed, or when the census would have taken place. His writing about Herod’s last 10 years of his life and when Rome turn Judaea would be far more reliable than the gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Luke 2 for instance, recorded that were census carried out throughout the Roman Empire, and the gospel stated that census was carried out when Herod the Great was still alive and when Jesus was born. But no such widespread census were carried out the Roman Empire, and Josephus rightly stated that census was only carried out in 6 CE, ten years after Herod’s death and when Rome turned Judaea into a Roman province.
Plus, people were only taxed where they lived at the time, not where a person’s tribal ancestors have once lived. So if Joseph was living in Nazareth, Galilee, then there are no reasons as to why Joseph would go to Bethlehem to register in the Roman census. The gospels clearly unreliable as to regarding to Jesus’ birth.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Somebody, including you, is making things up or having visions from a rather ungodly source. Have a nice day.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
the gaps also don't have to mean that the theory (of evolution) is true.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I notice you hardly if ever answer questions, otherwise I would ask you how you know this, please right? and thanks for not continuing to say please right -- please right? you got me into that habit.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
But the evidence sure does.