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

[The Archregimancy]

Hmmmm. It could well be. It was a poorly phrased argument, but that does make more sense.

But I don't understand why the existence of Jerusalem would inherently prove the validity of the Christian God. Jerusalem has an important role to play within Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, of course; but on that logic, the existence of Lumbini proves Buddhism, and the existence of Qufu proves Confucianism - neither of which are inherently theistic belief systems.

That Jerusalem exists, and that us pesky archaeologists can prove that Jerusalem has existed for at least a certain amount of time, does demonstrate that some Biblical accounts aren't necessarily false (and please spare me the tiresome Harry Potter/London cliche; why some people ever think that's even mildly clever escapes me), but nor does it inherently prove that the accounts are necessarily true as written.

It might, though, at least in theory, show that some of them aren't literally true, if some pesky archaeologist happened to find some evidence that contradicts the account as written (cf the flood, Exodus).

Two different examples.

Patently the archaeological and geological evidence demonstrates that the Deluge didn't happen as specifically described in the Old Testament.

Exodus is a trickier animal, and I lack the time and energy to deconstruct the nature of the archaeological and historical evidence. It's enough to say that the archaeological and historical evidence doesn't support the specific account of the Exodus, but that it's also a different type of not literally true as the Deluge, and isn't necessarily as false.

[Dogmeat]

It might, though, at least in theory, show that some of them aren't literally true, if some pesky archaeologist happened to find some evidence that contradicts the account as written (cf the flood, Exodus).

Two different examples.

Patently the archaeological and geological evidence demonstrates that the Deluge didn't happen as specifically described in the Old Testament.

Exodus is a trickier animal, and I lack the time and energy to deconstruct the nature of the archaeological and historical evidence. It's enough to say that the archaeological and historical evidence doesn't support the specific account of the Exodus, but that it's also a different type of not literally true as the Deluge, and isn't necessarily as false.

True, but how false does a story have to be before we call it "false?"

I mean, there are a few glimmers of plausible history in the Aeneid, but I'm going to go ahead and say that, broadly speaking, that didn't happen. And doubly so when you start getting theology involved (I mean, this is supposed to be set in the Mycenaean period, and Aphrodite doesn't even show up in linear b records.)

[Test2018]

Why did it happen? If it was just sitting there for all eternity unchanging, why did it decide to change of a sudden

Plenty of options. To name some of the more popular:
1. It was a random event with probability zero.
2. It didn't: it happened lots of times.
3. It didn't: the universe is cyclic.

... and if you really want to know the reason, do the following:
1. Do not believe in any gods
2. Do fight for peace, for social progress and by the way, for the right to euthanasia and the rights of temporarily non-living too.
3. But do it carefully, so as not to die suddenly, but to die as planned, in a cryofirm, and to have enough money to pay for cryonics services.
4. ...
5. Maybe someday you will find out a more exact answer.

[The Archregimancy]

Two different examples.

Patently the archaeological and geological evidence demonstrates that the Deluge didn't happen as specifically described in the Old Testament.

Exodus is a trickier animal, and I lack the time and energy to deconstruct the nature of the archaeological and historical evidence. It's enough to say that the archaeological and historical evidence doesn't support the specific account of the Exodus, but that it's also a different type of not literally true as the Deluge, and isn't necessarily as false.

True, but how false does a story have to be before we call it "false?"

I mean, there are a few glimmers of plausible history in the Aeneid, but I'm going to go ahead and say that, broadly speaking, that didn't happen. And doubly so when you start getting theology involved (I mean, this is supposed to be set in the Mycenaean period, and Aphrodite doesn't even show up in linear b records.)

You do know what I do for a living, right?

I lack the time or the inclination to write another long post about this; let's just recycle an old one.

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.

Your Linear B argument, incidentally, is an odd one given A) the limited corpus of Linear B texts and B) the Phoenician origin of Aphrodite worship.

[Dogmeat]

True, but how false does a story have to be before we call it "false?"

I mean, there are a few glimmers of plausible history in the Aeneid, but I'm going to go ahead and say that, broadly speaking, that didn't happen. And doubly so when you start getting theology involved (I mean, this is supposed to be set in the Mycenaean period, and Aphrodite doesn't even show up in linear b records.)

You do know what I do for a living, right?

Of course. It's a serious question.

I mean, I tend to hold things as plausible or probable in all degrees given the vagaries of the historical record, but I don't think it's wrong to call an obviously (at least) inaccurate account false either. It's an odd thing to specifically call someone out on.

I lack the time or the inclination to write another long post about this; let's just recycle an old one.

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.

Your Linear B argument, incidentally, is an odd one given A) the limited corpus of Linear B texts and B) the Phoenician origin of Aphrodite worship.

The best evidence suggests that if Astarte was worshiped in Greece at all during this period, it was probably limited to Crete and/or Kythra, and certainly not a very prominent Goddess like she was by the time the Iliad was codified (or we would have records of her, limited corpus or no.)

Which is a digression to the main point that events clearly did not occur as described. You could say that the Aeneid is at least somewhat accurate (at least more then other Greco-Roman myths), because - you know - Troy existed and things, but that still doesn't change the fact that (broadly speaking) the story isn't true.

[Godular]

And if there are no sentient people in the universe to construct such a logical system, that distinction would still hold true?

Yes.

See, now I'm feeling reversed on. I asked ya about this stuff a long while back and ya said it checked out. Was it the phrasing or what?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 1498932547
Is this what you're trying to say?: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... termediate

The universe is infinitely large and expanding

Oxymoron

... into itself.

Logically impossible.

There's an analogy about this involving a hotel with infinite rooms hosting multiple groups of infinite people, but it gets complicated.

Yes, I know that scenario. That was explained as a paradox and logically impossible by some discord brothers I know. If I can find I'll show you insha-Allah.

Because nothing is like Allah SWT.

How do you know that?

Because Allah SWT himself said so.

Which mean that things can exist without a cause. Which means that the universe could, possibly, exist without a cause.

Still didn't say anything about things nor the universe.

If you build a phone for example, you're not bound by the laws/inner workings of said phone. It's the same case with Allah SWT building the universe.

If there can be things that can exist without needing a cause, how do you know that the universe is not such a thing?

Because for 1 it has a beginning.

I barely know who he is. Anyway, here's what the KCA says:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... -argument/:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

1. Prove this.
2. Prove this
4. This does not follow from the premises.

1: You want me to prove that everything has a cause for it's existence? That sounds pretty self-explanatory.
2: Scientific models, big bang theory
4: Yes it does.

The arguments that prove Allah SWT beg to differ.

"SWT", that means "Peace and blessings be upon Him" correct? Why would an omniomni God require a measly, weak, powerless, vastly inferior human to wish Him peace?

No, you're thinking of "SAWS". "SWT" is "SubHaanuhu wa ta'ala" meaning "glorious and high is He".

No, they absolutely are random

From our limited understanding, yes.

This is a nonsensical comparison.

No it's not.

Additionally, in order that to be taken seriously then you’d have to prove that there is an outside of the universe.

The universe is expanding. Hence there's an outside.

That does not follow. The universe is not expanding by extending itself at some boundary, but by the distance metric shifting such that a fixed distance becomes shorter.

You explicitly claimed that this argument proved the existence of your particular deity.

Where?

Here, you assume your conclusion.

How?

This does not follow.

Yes it does. Every component of this universe came from something else before it, so logically the universe itself came from something (theoretically that singularity).

But why doesn't Allah have a cause?

Because:
1: Allah SWT exists outside of this universe
2: Nothing is like Allah SWT
3: Allah SWT is a non-contigent being (doesn't need/have a cause)

[Ifreann]

How do you know that?

Because Allah SWT himself said so.

Not very convincing.

Which mean that things can exist without a cause. Which means that the universe could, possibly, exist without a cause.

Still didn't say anything about things nor the universe.

If you're saying that Allah can exist without a cause then it follows that things can exist without a cause, which means that the universe could, possibly, exist without a cause.

If there can be things that can exist without needing a cause, how do you know that the universe is not such a thing?

Because for 1 it has a beginning.

Does it? The Big Bang might not be the beginning of the universe. The universe might be a thing that doesn't have a beginning.

[Korhal IVV]

Maybe because Western Society was built on Christian values

Not exactly, it is more complex then that.
But explain to me how the Western World became Christian.

It all boils down to Paul going to Macedonia instead of China.

Eventually, 1/20th of the Roman Empire’s population became Christian by the time of Constantine. The Christian Church would then expand into the rest of Europe, North Africa, Palestine, Syria, and Transjordan.

Because Europe was the bastion of Christianity (no matter how warped Christianity became under the corruptions of the Catholic Church, which were fortunately remedied by the Council of Trent as well as Martin Luther spawning the Protestant Reformation), the Age of Colonization had European (and thus, predominantly Christian) states colonizing the New World. That is how the Western World became an entity associated with Christianity.

[Godular]

The universe is infinitely large and expanding

Oxymoron

Irrelevant.

... into itself.

Logically impossible.

Still happening.

There's an analogy about this involving a hotel with infinite rooms hosting multiple groups of infinite people, but it gets complicated.

Yes, I know that scenario. That was explained as a paradox and logically impossible by some discord brothers I know. If I can find I'll show you insha-Allah.

Doesn't matter. It's still happening.

[Novo Vaticanus]

These arguments are largely emotion-based. While faith is an emotional subject for many, emotion-based arguments fail to convince wavering believers. Going for the hard-sell ("my way or Hell") approach also won't convince.

Yeah, I know. I didn't even say that though so whatever. There must be a God, our universe demands it. An infinite contingency just doesn't make any kind of logical sense, seeing as nothing we've physically observed is capable of causing itself to occur. There has to be an initial causation, an unmoved mover, for anything to begin to exist, and this is what we call God.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Does it? The Big Bang might not be the beginning of the universe. The universe might be a thing that doesn't have a beginning.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
But whether the universe started with the big bang or not, it's near consensus that it has a beginning.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Oxymoron

Irrelevant.

No it's not. You can't expand into yourself, you can only expand into something else.

Still happening.

No it's not.

Doesn't matter. It's still happening.

I'll still show you.

[Godular]

Irrelevant.

No it's not. You can't expand into yourself, you can only expand into something else.

Yes, the universe can expand into itself and it has been doing so for its entire existence. We know that it is infinitely large because we have done censuses of the number of galaxies, and every direction we look, we see the same number. This indicates that the universe has no edge, and we can see that it is growing thanks to the whole 'things move away from us faster the further away they are' thing.

We can see the edge of the OBSERVABLE universe quite readily, but we're also seeing things emerging from that edge as it continues to expand away from us.

Still happening.

No it's not.

Yes it is. Everywhere in the universe is still that original point from which everything started. Infinity can very much expand into itself because it is infinite. What you claim to be logically impossible is in point of fact not at all impossible.

[East Lodge]

And no one's gonna talk about how people were/are killed because they aren't a part of a religion? And how people, who were about to die, faked conversions so they could save their life?

But Hitler was an athiest.
Yeah I made quite an impression...

[Farnhamia]

And no one's gonna talk about how people were/are killed because they aren't a part of a religion? And how people, who were about to die, faked conversions so they could save their life?

Yeah I made quite an impression...

Maybe because that's not really the topic, now is it?

[Nolo gap]

knowledge does not limit existence, therefor, many gods could exist, without anything needing to be known.
what there isn't, is anything to limit or bind, what gods or god like beings might exist, to what anyone thinks they know about it.

all religious works are speculative, and without reliable means of authentication.
gods or whatever we feel or imagine, can always be loved, and perhaps related to,
but pleas don't try to claim to know their will.

there is no verifiable need for infallibility, but there is an observable universal wonder of strangeness.

[Dytarma]

No need for such things in my life.

[Coruscanti Nations]

And no one's gonna talk about how people were/are killed because they aren't a part of a religion? And how people, who were about to die, faked conversions so they could save their life?

Yeah I made quite an impression...

Jihads, crusades, fatwas, and inquisitions are all heresy.

Forced conversion is heresy.

The Saxons, for example, only converted when the Franks conquered them with the sword with the Pope’s blessing, and the Frankish kings sent for priests whenever the battles ended so that the surviving Saxons will be baptized. And yet, the Saxons had NO idea what Christianity was all about.

Forced conversion is implictly prohibited in the Bible, and so, is very, very wrong in that regard.

[Gamzium]

If God created everything, what created God? Does God have a God? If so, how many states of Gods are there? Infinite?

[Coruscanti Nations]

If God created everything, what created God? Does God have a God? If so, how many states of Gods are there? Infinite?

God is an eternal being, aka, having no beginning and no end. So no, God doesn’t have a God.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And no one's gonna talk about how people were/are killed because they aren't a part of a religion? And how people, who were about to die, faked conversions so they could save their life?

Yeah I made quite an impression...

Jihads, crusades, fatwas, and inquisitions are all heresy.

Jihad aren't heresy, and "fatwa" doesn't even fit into what you're trying to say. I don't even think you're using the word "heresy" right.

[Ifreann]

Does it? The Big Bang might not be the beginning of the universe. The universe might be a thing that doesn't have a beginning.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
But whether the universe started with the big bang or not, it's near consensus that it has a beginning.

Not very extraordinary evidence to match your extraordinary claims.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
But whether the universe started with the big bang or not, it's near consensus that it has a beginning.

Not very extraordinary evidence to match your extraordinary claims.

That the universe has a beginning is not an extraordinary claim. Did you read the links?

[Salandriagado]

Yes.

See, now I'm feeling reversed on. I asked ya about this stuff a long while back and ya said it checked out. Was it the phrasing or what?

Possibly? We're pushing around the limits of what's mathematics and what's philosophy of mathematics, and what I'm saying is very much coloured by my particular philosophical views, but there are some very similarly-worded statements that I'd give the opposite answer to.