Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Tasuirin]

I think I have a theory as to how God, but I want to get it theologically asseced before posting

I can't wait to tear this to shreds I mean, give constructive feedback...

I mean, if we're going all "scientific method" on this hypothesis, we need to try to tear it to shreds. All theories go through the same process. We must be initially opposed to any idea, and try to find flaws in it from every angle we can, until we later give up because we cannot find an effective rebuttal, and later accept the hypothesis as a theory, and thus the best idea we have for explaining certain phenomena. It's cruel, yes. It's cold, yes. But it is also efficient at weeding out truth from lies.

[Aussandries]

I think I have a theory as to how God, but I want to get it theologically asseced before posting

I can't wait to tear this to shreds I mean, give constructive feedback...

you should bloody well listen to his argument before tearing it down.
It is honestly insulting how little you all regard from any religious arguments put forward, which mainly do have the same level of historical evidence and backing as your own arguments, which you can be damn well sure that we read and consider before just automatically putting them down. So grow up, and have a reasonable debate rather than just ignoring what we say. For goodness sake, bloody atheists.

[Tasuirin]

I can't wait to tear this to shreds I mean, give constructive feedback...

you should bloody well listen to his argument before tearing it down.
It is honestly insulting how little you all regard from any religious arguments put forward, which mainly do have the same level of historical evidence and backing as your own arguments, which you can be damn well sure that we read and consider before just automatically putting them down. So grow up, and have a reasonable debate rather than just ignoring what we say. For goodness sake, bloody atheists.

I've just explained why all arguments should be torn apart, and that includes atheist and scientific ones. It is the best way to arrive at a conclusion and be relatively sure that the conclusion you arrive at is true, to the best of your knowledge. A true argument should stand up to or effectively rebut/dismiss criticism without appealing to fallacy, unproven assumption or blatant untruth to do so. If the content is solid, the argument should be too.

[Aussandries]

you should bloody well listen to his argument before tearing it down.
It is honestly insulting how little you all regard from any religious arguments put forward, which mainly do have the same level of historical evidence and backing as your own arguments, which you can be damn well sure that we read and consider before just automatically putting them down. So grow up, and have a reasonable debate rather than just ignoring what we say. For goodness sake, bloody atheists.

I've just explained why all arguments should be torn apart, and that includes atheist and scientific ones. It is the best way to arrive at a conclusion and be relatively sure that the conclusion you arrive at is true, to the best of your knowledge. A true argument should stand up to or effectively rebut/dismiss criticism without appealing to fallacy, unproven assumption or blatant untruth to do so. If the content is solid, the argument should be too.

yeah don't worry mate, wasn't talking to you, you look like someone who actually appreciates arguments. I was talking to the other one

[Tarsonis]

really. you have read through all 125 pages?

I have been here since page 1, and I have read all the pages thus far, and there has been no evidence to prove the existence of a God.

Nor will there be. It's sort of a fundamental truth of religion/philosophy/science etc, that the existence of God can neither be conclusively proven or disproven.

[The Grims]

Agreed,as long as you stop making up documents that do not exist.
Or provide them ofc. That would also work.

Josephus, a Jewish writer from the time, recorded Jesus twice within his writings, and while neither were positive particularly, they prove that even His "enemies" acknowledged his existence.

About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

Furthermore, though you may try to disprove this one, the New Testament of the Bible was written by multiple people, some of whom claimed to have witnessed the events of Jesus' miracles. Likewise, the other writers have their sources from word of mouth, which while can not be said to be reliable, all rumours start from something, and it is very curious that without interior organisation, all these sources tell very similar stories about the life, miracles and death of Christ.

Nond of these are anything like the documents that younclaimed existed. Which was my point.

[Tarsonis]

Josephus, a Jewish writer from the time, recorded Jesus twice within his writings, and while neither were positive particularly, they prove that even His "enemies" acknowledged his existence.

About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

Furthermore, though you may try to disprove this one, the New Testament of the Bible was written by multiple people, some of whom claimed to have witnessed the events of Jesus' miracles. Likewise, the other writers have their sources from word of mouth, which while can not be said to be reliable, all rumours start from something, and it is very curious that without interior organisation, all these sources tell very similar stories about the life, miracles and death of Christ.

Nond of these are anything like the documents that younclaimed existed. Which was my point.

In all fairness the post they were responding to was utter nonsense already.

[The New California Republic]

I can't wait to tear this to shreds I mean, give constructive feedback...

you should bloody well listen to his argument before tearing it down.

In order to tear an argument apart it is kinda implied that I have to read it first, no?

It is honestly insulting how little you all regard from any religious arguments put forward, which mainly do have the same level of historical evidence and backing as your own arguments, which you can be damn well sure that we read and consider before just automatically putting them down. So grow up, and have a reasonable debate rather than just ignoring what we say. For goodness sake, bloody atheists.

Ha. Throwing a hissy fit about people discussing things on a discussion thread is a bit strange, but alright; and we aren't ignoring what you say at all, as again it is implied that one has to read what is being said in order to discuss it.

[Alvecia]

I have been here since page 1, and I have read all the pages thus far, and there has been no evidence to prove the existence of a God.

Nor will there be. It's sort of a fundamental truth of religion/philosophy/science etc, that the existence of God can neither be conclusively proven or disproven.

Then one should adopt the null hypothesis, no?

[Tarsonis]

Nor will there be. It's sort of a fundamental truth of religion/philosophy/science etc, that the existence of God can neither be conclusively proven or disproven.

Then one should adopt the null hypothesis, no?

I said there wasn't conclusive proof, doesn't mean there aren't arguments from reason. Any tangible or empirical evidence short of the heavens cracking open and God saying Hi to the universe, will never give us evidence of God or not of God. The Universe is a closed system, which means empiricism is limited to said system. God, presumably transcends this system. Even if God manipulates the system, the perception of the those within the system will never be able to see anything but the system.

[Salandriagado]

Also, everyone, sorry for my off and on participation in this thread, but I think something needs to be said:


Why believe in God?

Aside from the fact there is literally no evidence apart from a book and a bunch of writings which only self-reference themselves, Occam's Razor just shaves this off:
"So uhhh...the universe has a beginning, right? So what created it?"
"There's a magic omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent man outside the universe, all-powerful, all-seeing and all-hearing."
"Isn't there a possibility in which the universe creates itself through scientific processes and the big cru-"
"MAGIC BEING!"

you realise that there are sources in Roman, Greek, Jewish and Egyptian documents about Jesus and His miracles, right? There are first hand accounts inside them, ask any ancient historian. Why would the Romans and Jews especially lie? They had Him killed for goodness sake.

Stop lying.

"Plus, the universe has a beginning, right? So what created it?"

Why does anything need to have created it?

"Giant explosion creating something from nothing!"

Not an explosion.

"Wait, isn't that against the laws of phys-"
"GIANT EXPLOSION!"

No, it isn't. Conservation of energy is not "you can't get energy from no energy". It's "if you're getting energy from no energy, you must also get an equal amount of negative energy".

[Provost 14]

raised believing, most believable explanation for surviving a 1-2-3 combo of pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, and endocarditis is god answering my parents prayers.

[Salandriagado]

This didn't happen. Egyptian records report no drop in economic output in the period.

that's cos they uses slaves. They didn't have to pay their workers, so of course the economy wouldn't be any more negatively effected than if there was a slightly worse harvest.

Your slaves up and leaving makes your entire economy collapse.

Also, there wasn't a worse harvest.

[Korhal IVV]

quite the opposite - the use of slaves, Hebrew or not, means it is fairly likely that they would try and leave anyway. Likewise, the fact that there are no records of this just points to inherent corruption within the Egyptian regime, and fear of the Pharaoh. Would you admit to the despotic leader of your nation who could have you killed in a second without trial that you had allowed hundreds or thousands of slaves to escape? No, of course not. It is likely they just grabbed a whole new lot of slaves before the economy could be too damaged.

Are slaves just a dime a dozen in your model? And the economy completely unaffected by 12 massive plagues? As well as the sudden loss of the vast majority of the workforce? Which was then followed by, what appeared to be, the leader of the whole country deciding to invade the red sea and then realising that he can't breathe water? There are a lot of factors there that should have been recorded, and with literally any other Pharaoh, they would have been.

You’d think that the Pharaoh after that would have decided not to record that horrible fiasco, which shames his dynasty. Egyptians are not above historical revisionism if they have to. Any record may have been destroyed either by time or by the Pharaoh’s orders. Though there are sources still, as someone else here has said.

Furthermore, the Egyptians May have not actually lost the vast majority of their workforce to begin with, as the Bible is known for having confusing numbers, because Hebrew is a strange language. A falling wall killed 27,000 men in Aphek, which could be translated to just 27 officers, and the ludicrous sizes of the armies of Judah and Israel in the reign of King Abijah (180,000 and 120,000 respectively would most likely be minor translation errors, and would either be more realistically 18,000 and 12,000, or 1,800 and 1,200). If Egypt had, say, 3-4.5 million inhabitants, a quarter leaving would leave a massive imprint. However, if it was either 6,000 or 60,000 males plus their families... not much. Egypt was already crawling with Semitic people anyway.

[Andsed]

that's cos they uses slaves. They didn't have to pay their workers, so of course the economy wouldn't be any more negatively effected than if there was a slightly worse harvest.

Your slaves up and leaving makes your entire economy collapse.

Also, there wasn't a worse harvest.

Not no mention the ten damm plagues god hit them with/

[Salandriagado]

Agreed,as long as you stop making up documents that do not exist.
Or provide them ofc. That would also work.

Josephus, a Jewish writer from the time, recorded Jesus twice within his writings, and while neither were positive particularly, they prove that even His "enemies" acknowledged his existence.

About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

Furthermore, though you may try to disprove this one, the New Testament of the Bible was written by multiple people, some of whom claimed to have witnessed the events of Jesus' miracles. Likewise, the other writers have their sources from word of mouth, which while can not be said to be reliable, all rumours start from something, and it is very curious that without interior organisation, all these sources tell very similar stories about the life, miracles and death of Christ.

So, yes, zero mentions of miracles.

[Salandriagado]

I have been here since page 1, and I have read all the pages thus far, and there has been no evidence to prove the existence of a God.

Nor will there be. It's sort of a fundamental truth of religion/philosophy/science etc, that the existence of God can neither be conclusively proven or disproven.

No it isn't. In particular, any capital-G, non-deist god is easy to disprove.

[Salandriagado]

raised believing, most believable explanation for surviving a 1-2-3 combo of pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, and endocarditis is god answering my parents prayers.

Or, you know, medicine.

[Korhal IVV]

Your slaves up and leaving makes your entire economy collapse.

Also, there wasn't a worse harvest.

Not no mention the ten damm plagues god hit them with/

The first nine of the plagues were most likely a natural chain reaction caused by something happening down river in the Nile.

Dust turning to gnats is a figure of speech, after all. If you look at the order of the plagues, you’d see how the magic of ecology causes all this stuff.

If anything, it wouldn’t be the first time. And Pharaoh wouldn’t like it to be recorded for future generations to read.

[The New California Republic]

raised believing, most believable explanation for surviving a 1-2-3 combo of pneumonia, bacterial meningitis, and endocarditis is god answering my parents prayers.

Let me ask you: did you just stay at home and pray, or did you have some kind of medical intervention in addition to the praying?

[Tasuirin]

You’d think that the Pharaoh after that would have decided not to record that horrible fiasco, which shames his dynasty. Egyptians are not above historical revisionism if they have to. Any record may have been destroyed either by time or by the Pharaoh’s orders. Though there are sources still, as someone else here has said.

Which Pharaoh do you think it might have been? Because if it's one of the more recognised ones (Ramesses the Great, for example), it'd be much harder to reconcile that with a shame to the dynasty model. Also, you would expect archaeological evidence of the Exodus. Though I would be interested in hearing said sources you mention.

Furthermore, the Egyptians May have not actually lost the vast majority of their workforce to begin with, as the Bible is known for having confusing numbers, because Hebrew is a strange language. A falling wall killed 27,000 men in Aphek, which could be translated to just 27 officers, and the ludicrous sizes of the armies of Judah and Israel in the reign of King Abijah (180,000 and 120,000 respectively would most likely be minor translation errors, and would either be more realistically 18,000 and 12,000, or 1,800 and 1,200). If Egypt had, say, 3-4.5 million inhabitants, a quarter leaving would leave a massive imprint. However, if it was either 6,000 or 60,000 males plus their families... not much. Egypt was already crawling with Semitic people anyway.

You have got me there, translation errors kill numerical accuracy. You do have to wonder, then, why god didn't provide them with a better numerical system.

Though I have to say, even if the leaving of just about 6,000-60,000 slaves doesn't damage the economy, that still doesn't explain why the 10 so-called plagues didn't. Or why the death of every single non-Hebrew firstborn in the country (save for those who just liked spreading lamb's blood on their doors for some reason) didn't get noted in some source or another.

[Salandriagado]

Not no mention the ten damm plagues god hit them with/

The first nine of the plagues were most likely a natural chain reaction caused by something happening down river in the Nile.

Which, again, didn't happen.

Dust turning to gnats is a figure of speech, after all. If you look at the order of the plagues, you’d see how the magic of ecology causes all this stuff.

No, you don't. You see bullshit.

If anything, it wouldn’t be the first time. And Pharaoh wouldn’t like it to be recorded for future generations to read.

So why are all of the other harvest records so reliable?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Which, again, didn't happen.

With some benefit of doubt it was probably Santorini going boom during the Second Intermediate Period.

[Kowani]

Not no mention the ten damm plagues god hit them with/

The first nine of the plagues were most likely a natural chain reaction caused by something happening down river in the Nile.

Dust turning to gnats is a figure of speech, after all. If you look at the order of the plagues, you’d see how the magic of ecology causes all this stuff.

If anything, it wouldn’t be the first time. And Pharaoh wouldn’t like it to be recorded for future generations to read.

If they were, they’d be recorded in the records of Kush. But. The Archregimancy, who is a Christian and an Archeologist working in the region, made a post about this. Lemme find it.

[Kowani]

For the Exodus debate:

Egypt and Exodus...

Broadly speaking, both sides in this thread have made some good points, and both sides have made significant mistakes.

My own position is that Exodus clearly isn't an accurate historical narrative, nor can it be taken literally; however, thread participants who've pointed out that Kowani's arguments against a literal Exodus have been deeply flawed are also frequently correct.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Exodus took place under the Egyptian New Kingdom (c.1550 - c. 1080 BC; the 18th-20th dynasties, including Ramesses II), which seems to be the implicit default position taken in the current discussion. Those who've objected that the lack of relevant historical evidence in Egyptian records isn't an inherent disqualifier are correct. With some rare exceptions, Egyptian royal records are propaganda designed to celebrate the king, whereby even a tactically ambiguous event like the Battle of Kadesh can be presented as a mighty victory for pharaoh; in that regard, Donald Trump had nothing on Ramesses II. Surviving Egyptian records are also highly partial rather than a complete record of events; there are extensive and important gaps. But this discussion over bias and partiality in the Egyptian historical and epigraphic records is a distraction that has virtually nothing to do with the most compelling evidence demonstrating that Exodus is not a literal historical record. This evidence is both historical and archaeological.

The most important point is that if the Exodus took place under the New Kingdom, as is often broadly supposed, then travelling to the Land of Canaan would have done nothing to take the ancient Israelites out of Egyptian control. For the majority of the New Kingdom period, certainly between Thutmose III and the final Ramessides, the territory of modern Israel/Palestine/Lebanon as far north as the Orontes was firmly and unequivocally under the control of the Egyptian state. Escaping Egyptian territory by crossing the Red Sea in order to ... enter Egyptian territory is clearly a profound problem for a historical Exodus.

Furthermore, we know from the sole surviving New Kingdom record of 'Israel' that the latter was most likely a wandering nomadic tribe in the Egyptian Levant. The record in question is the Merneptah Stele, discovered by the British archaeologist Flinders Petrie in the late 19th century, and describing some military campaigns of Ramesses II's son and heir Merneptah. While there are disagreements over the precise interpretation of the Merneptah Stele's mention of 'Ysrir', most scholars agree that it refers to a nomadic or semi-nomadic group in the general vicinity of historical Canaan who were caught up in a campaign by Merneptah to suppress a brief revolt by some cities in the region, and reassert long-standing Egyptian dominance. So there was a group of people called 'Ysrir' in broadly the right area in the New Kingdom period; that much is profoundly interesting. But they were in territory that was firmly under Egyptian control in their only appearance in the Egyptian record.

There are other, subtler, archaeological arguments involving the total absence of any form of identifiable 'Hebrew' material culture in either Egypt or Canaan in the relevant period; these are far more of an issue for a literal Exodus than the lack of historical records, though still not definitive in isolation. But when combined with the points in the previous two paragraphs, the weight of the totality of the evidence comes as close to conclusive as you can come for the period.

The Biblical narrative of the Exodus is therefore best understood as an inspiring allegory rather than as a literal description of historical events.

However, arguments that the Old Testament can't be used as history in any form are wildly overblown. It can; just not uncritically. Let's take an example from later in the Old Testament to demonstrate the point. The 22nd Dynasty (Third Intermediate Period) pharaoh Shoshenq I (c.940-c.920 BC) campaigned extensively in the Levant in an attempt to restore the lost New Kingdom empire in the region; he was temporarily successful, but Egyptian presence in Canaan collapsed again following his death. This isn't the place to get into the nature of the fragmentation of the Egyptian state in the Third Intermediate Period, or dwell on the fact that the rulers of the 22nd Dynasty were actually Libyans. It's enough to note that Shoshenq I campaigned throughout 'Canaan', reaching as far north as Megiddo, and that his campaigns are recorded on several monumental inscriptions from his reign, as far south as Karnak. Shoshenq was very likely the Biblical 'Shishak' recorded in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles as having attacked the Kingdom of Judah. The two historical narratives - the Egyptian and the Biblical - don't agree on the particulars (there's no mention of Jerusalem in the Egyptian lists of places Shoshenq attacked), but it is at least possible to reconcile the broad narrative, and to argue that differences in specifics are a matter of emphasis and local perspective rather than ahistoricity.

The relationship between Shoshenq I and the Biblical Shishak is, however, another argument against a literal Exodus since it strongly suggests the latter can't have taken place after the collapse of Egyptian power at the end of the 20th Dynasty, which would be the main alternative to a New Kingdom Exodus, and would help explain why Biblical Canaan and Philistia weren't under Egyptian control (which would better fit the Biblical narrative). Shoshenq's campaigns help fix the Biblical narrative of kings Jeroboam and Rehoboam in particular decades in the 10th century BC, in turn strongly suggesting that the Exodus - if historical - must have taken place in the New Kingdom; which is, as we've noted, is profoundly problematic.

Finally, 'archaeology' is spelled with two 'a's unless A) you work for the US national park service or B) embrace a specific theoretical school of thought popular in the United States in the 1960s. Almost everyone else, including most Americans, spells it with both 'a's.