Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[idav]

In a reality where every version of a universe is possible then a universe without a deity is possible as well. However it points to a maximal being that can exist and not exist at the same time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't have to; it's based on nothing...

Cool. If thats all you can come up with, I will leave you to it.

What do you mean "prove it"? You're clearly begging the question...

Based on??

There are more stories about dragons than there are about Jesus. Almost every culture in the world has some form of dragon; it must be based in truth, right? :sarcastic

What are stories based on people that believed they saw dragons?

Besides a story book?

What is history but a bunch of stories?

Prove it.

The early Church Fathers dating back to the first and second century AD both attest that Matthew wrote the book that bears his name, and Peter's disciple Mark wrote the book of Mark, and that Luke companion of Paul wrote the book of Luke, and that John the disciple of Jesus wrote John.

Fiction.

Historical fact.

 

[nash8]

Cool. If thats all you can come up with, I will leave you to it.



Based on??



What are stories based on people that believed they saw dragons?



What is history but a bunch of stories?



The early Church Fathers dating back to the first and second century AD both attest that Matthew wrote the book that bears his name, and Peter's disciple Mark wrote the book of Mark, and that Luke companion of Paul wrote the book of Luke, and that John the disciple of Jesus wrote John.



Historical fact.

Can you cite some evidence where the early church fathers attribute these books to their respective namesakes, and also evidence of who these namesakes are in regard to their historical perspective?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Those were two translations.

You are right not every translation has perfect. But they have blameless which is synomous with having no guilt. If he had sin he would have been guilty.

Ok, but is it taking into account his whole entire life, or just during the period of time that the story takes place? There was a period of time during a season where Michael Jordan averaged over 40 points per game, but he didn't average 40 points per game the entire season.

I mean Moses didn't make it into Canaan for that one slight to God. Yet God saved Noah because he found Noah blameless.

Right, but God sought Moses SPECIFICALLY out to lead his people out of Egypt and insisted that Moses obey him despite his protests. If Noah was the ONLY righteous man out of the whole entire earth, then it would be obvious why his life was spared. But I am quite sure Moses wasn't the most righteous man walking about during that time, yet God chose him anyway. The Lord has his reasons for who he chooses, I guess.

Now if you want to make it complicated and do the little dance that we all do with scripture. The part where it says "his generation" can be said to apply that God judge Noah based on the merits of people, and not to what merit that God has...but that's still twisting the arm a little because the only merit that God would use to judge us is his own since morality is not something created by God but exists simply by the premise that God exists. So to God Noah would have been moral in accordance with Gods moral standard and Gods moral standard is perfect.

Everyone in heaven would have to have been in "accordance with Gods moral standard" while on earth, but that isn't to say that everyone in heaven would be in heaven because of their moral perfection while on earth. This would in fact contradict scripture as a whole.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Ok, but is it taking into account his whole entire life, or just during the period of time that the story takes place? There was a period of time during a season where Michael Jordan averaged over 40 points per game, but he didn't average 40 points per game the entire season.



Right, but God sought Moses SPECIFICALLY out to lead his people out of Egypt and insisted that Moses obey him despite his protests. If Noah was the ONLY righteous man out of the whole entire earth, then it would be obvious why his life was spared. But I am quite sure Moses wasn't the most righteous man walking about during that time, yet God chose him anyway. The Lord has his reasons for who he chooses, I guess.



Everyone in heaven would have to have been in "accordance with Gods moral standard" while on earth, but that isn't to say that everyone in heaven would be in heaven because of their moral perfection while on earth. This would in fact contradict scripture as a whole.

It simply said of his generation, whether that extends to his whole life or not, doesn't matter. But up onto that point in his life, Noah had been blameless/guiltless/without fault before God. Afterwards, IDK. Noah lived a long time before the flood, wasn't he around 600?

Now we could always dismiss the case of Noah and just chuck it up to a spin of the myth of Gilgamash which itself borrowed from the myth from the Akkadians (might be wrong on the culture), but lets not do that.

Up until that point, Noah had been blameless before God (I'll refrain to using perfect since I think perfect is used only in one specific translation).

Mind you I'm not sure why God choose to Flood the earth in the first place, but it's God so shrug.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Based on??

Based on the definition of God as the only thing which can exist without a source (which is purely assumption).

What are stories based on people that believed they saw dragons?

The same thing as stories based on people who believed they saw the messiah rise from the dead.

What is history but a bunch of stories?

Stories with concrete evidence to back them up, which disqualifies the Gospels. Let alone the fact that there are multiple contradictions in these so-called "eyewitness" accounts; there is still the lack of any physical evidence.

The early Church Fathers dating back to the first and second century AD both attest that Matthew wrote the book that bears his name, and Peter's disciple Mark wrote the book of Mark, and that Luke companion of Paul wrote the book of Luke, and that John the disciple of Jesus wrote John.

The average life expectancy during that time period was about 35 years of age, with the oldest living until around age 80. The earliest Gospel (Mark) was written around 70 AD, almost 40 years after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus... John was written around 95-100 AD. Do you mean to tell me these people lived well into their 70s and 80s (100s on John's part), before they decided to record and publish the life of Jesus? The general consensus of biblical scholars is that the Gospels are not in fact eyewtiness accounts. You can take it up with the people who dedicate their lives to studying the Bible if you believe otherwise.

Historical fact.

Based on what evidence?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Based on the definition of God as the only thing which can exist without a source (which is purely assumption).




The same thing as stories based on people who believed they saw the messiah rise from the dead.




Stories with concrete evidence to back them up, which disqualifies the Gospels. Let alone the fact that there are multiple contradictions in these so-called "eyewitness" accounts; there is still the lack of any physical evidence.




The average life expectancy during that time period was about 35 years of age, with the oldest living until around age 80. The earliest Gospel (Mark) was written around 70 AD, almost 40 years after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus... John was written around 95-100 AD. Do you mean to tell me these people lived well into their 70s and 80s (100s on John's part), before they decided to record and publish the life of Jesus? The general consensus of biblical scholars is that the Gospels are not in fact eyewtiness accounts. You can take it up with the people who dedicate their lives to studying the Bible if you believe otherwise.





Based on what evidence?

I thought Mark was written around 50 A.D. with Matthew written around 70 A.D. (which would coincide with when the Temple was destroyed)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Can you cite some evidence where the early church fathers attribute these books to their respective namesakes, and also evidence of who these namesakes are in regard to their historical perspective?

Sure. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.3.4, it states..

"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Sure. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.3.4, it states..

"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."

Irenaeus wasn't alive during either of those times though. Wasn't his birth around 2nd century A.D.?

Though I guess Polycarp who he had heard in his youth would have been a good source.

In part Irenaeus would have been a tertiary source. Polycarp a secondary and John (who Polycarp would have studied under) the primary source.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I thought Mark was written around 50 A.D. with Matthew written around 70 A.D. (which would coincide with when the Temple was destroyed)

Either way it is still within the lifetime of the disciples.

 

[nash8]

Sure. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.3.4, it states..

"Matthew published his own Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia."

Very nice sir, but I still have a few questions.
1. What is the generaly scholarly view on the accuracy of this report?
2. Even though Irenaeus says that these people wrote their respective gospels, does it neccesary imply that the earlierst sources that we have are the actual copies that the disciples themselves wrote? And if this is the case, how much could the information within the gospesl have changed?
3. Can you cite a source that shows that we have a copy of the bible written in Hebrew during the time of the disciples.

Basically, that is a good source that you quoted, but it is the writings of one man. I think that there are copies of the gospels written just like you have said, the problem with that is that the earliest copies we have direct knowledge of, aka existing copies of them, was not until much later. Without the actual copies that the apostles actually wrote, we have no idea what was in them or how they correlate to the existing copies that we do have. Basically, we have no clue how the gospels that you listed as being written directly by the apostles compare with those that we actually have records of. For all we know the actual copies written by Mathew and Mark could have totally changed through translation and various other means by the time we have actual records of.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Either way it is still within the lifetime of the disciples.

Actually Peter would have died before the writing of Matthew if it was written in 70 A.D.

Mark was written first but I might have my dates wrong.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Irenaeus wasn't alive during either of those times though. Wasn't his birth around 2nd century A.D.?

There are historians that are alive today that are writing books about Abraham Lincoln, and no one alive today was around during those times. Do you question their reliability?

Though I guess Polycarp who he had heard in his youth would have been a good source.

In part Irenaeus would have been a tertiary source. Polycarp a secondary and John (who Polycarp would have studied under) the primary source.

Any student that is doing a history report of the Revolutionary War is a tertiary source, based on your logic, so no report of history should be accepted.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually Peter would have died before the writing of Matthew if it was written in 70 A.D.

I know the dates are a bit subjective, but even you said Mark was written around 50 A.D., that is well before 70 A.D which would make Peter 20 years younger and very much alive.

Mark was written first but I might have my dates wrong.

That seems to be the concensus.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It simply said of his generation, whether that extends to his whole life or not, doesn't matter. But up onto that point in his life, Noah had been blameless/guiltless/without fault before God. Afterwards, IDK. Noah lived a long time before the flood, wasn't he around 600?

So suppose of everyone in the world within my "generation", I am the slowest runner. But I spend 5 years working on my running, and become faster. So with 5 years of hard work, I become the faster runner of my generation. Times change. Conditions change. Situations change.

Now we could always dismiss the case of Noah and just chuck it up to a spin of the myth of Gilgamash which itself borrowed from the myth from the Akkadians (might be wrong on the culture), but lets not do that.

Lets not.

Up until that point, Noah had been blameless before God (I'll refrain to using perfect since I think perfect is used only in one specific translation).

Mind you I'm not sure why God choose to Flood the earth in the first place, but it's God so shrug.

So are you suggesting that since Noah didn't sin, he could have died for the sins of the world, as Jesus did?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There are historians that are alive today that are writing books about Abraham Lincoln, and no one alive today was around during those times. Do you question their reliability?



Any student that is doing a history report of the Revolutionary War is a tertiary source, based on your logic, so no report of history should be accepted.

Well the thing is that we have access to primary sources such as Abraham's actual writings, and of course things that were written during their actual occurrence rather than years after.

We don't have any of the original gospels unaltered or preserved.

We also have strict rules in place for writing and publishing historical books.

Can you say that these same rules applied back then?

But the writings of today are also continously challenged. Beliefs about our presidents have changed over the years as new information is reviewed, new documents are brought up. There is a continous evolving discussion about our history. This is done for the Gospel as well.

Consensus among scholars today is appearing to be in agreement that Matthew was written by multiple sources. Most scholars are in agreement that Mark ends at chapter 16:8 with the empty tomb and resurrection was added later. Luke is believed to be copied from Mark, and John has a different timeline than the other three gospels.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So suppose of everyone in the world within my "generation", I am the slowest runner. But I spend 5 years working on my running, and become faster. So with 5 years of hard work, I become the faster runner of my generation. Times change. Conditions change. Situations change.



Lets not.



So are you suggesting that since Noah didn't sin, he could have died for the sins of the world, as Jesus did?

Of course they change

but for 600 years (despite the verse prior saying that people should only live 120) Noah was blameless/guiltless/without fault before God. We have no idea if he maintained it afterwards, but we know for a fact that for 600 he did. To say he didn't after would just be speculation.

God choose Noah to be the leading force into the new world, only Noah and his seed survived, only Noah was judged by God to be blameless (not his family, yet Noah's entire family was saved by the acts of one man), It was with Noah that the first covenant was created and the world saved from further destruction by water by God (speculation if that meant other forms of destruction would or would not happen). So if one wants to stretch it out, then yeah one can make some interesting parallels between the story of Noah and Jesus.

But I'm not one to pick part of the bible to try to prove the other.

 

[Moishe3rd]

It just mean he was a very good person, and not every translation has the word "perfect". Besides, are we to believe that Noah didn't commit not ONE SINGLE sin in all of his years?? I don't think so. Besides that, to say someone is morally perfect is to say that they are on the same level as God, because God himself is morally perfect. So was Noah on the same level as God, or can anyone be on the same level as God? Not at all.

From Torah.org:
".... we find that the Sages often compare Noah to Abraham, invariably finding Noah inferior. Scriptures state, "Noah was a righteous man; he was perfect in his generation" (Genesis 6:9). The Midrash, noting the phrase "in *his* generation," makes the following comment:

Some interpret this favorably: Even in that wicked generation he was righteous, how much more so had he lived in a generation of righteous people. Others interpret this unfavorably: Compared to this wicked generation he was righteous, but had he lived in Abraham's generation, he would have counted for nothing. (See Rashi to that verse, based on Midrash Tanchuma.)"

 

[nash8]

After further inspection, Iranaeus is definitely not a credible source, sorry. He clearly has an agenda, and he is writing about a subject that occurred nearly 100 years prior to his life.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The argument proves nothing. By Plantinga's own words, it justifies the rationality of believing such a thing exists, but does nothing to prove its existence.
“Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion”
-Alvin Plantinga, "The Nature of Necessity" (1974), pg 221

Calling this argument proof of God's existence is false.

Indeed. But I'll go you one further; saying the argument shows "it is rational to accept" the existence of God is non-sequitur- the argument is not logically sound, is based on a highly questionable logical axiom (S5) which amounts to begging the question in this context, and relies on a bait-n-switch fallacy of equivocation to even get to its desired premise at all. Such an argument cannot provide a rational basis for anything (except, perhaps, being suspicious of such arguments in the future)...