Who Told Vorderman People Care What She...
News0 min ago
Why Should God Appear/exist At All?
217 Answers
I asked this in naomi's 'Atheist Authors' thread, below, in response to khandro's query.
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
@birdie
My post was supposed to be in support of yours!
I offered that link by way of setting monotheism in chronological context. How does 1300s BC compare with its emergence in Judaism, or among the Greek philosophers and so on?
Did his idea travel out of Egypt or were they insular with it? Did someone bring the concept into his domain from without or did he arrive at the idea by independent thought?
Given the speed with which it was rejected, upon his death, can (should?) we infer that it would have been equally unpopular in the wider world?
My post was supposed to be in support of yours!
I offered that link by way of setting monotheism in chronological context. How does 1300s BC compare with its emergence in Judaism, or among the Greek philosophers and so on?
Did his idea travel out of Egypt or were they insular with it? Did someone bring the concept into his domain from without or did he arrive at the idea by independent thought?
Given the speed with which it was rejected, upon his death, can (should?) we infer that it would have been equally unpopular in the wider world?
Clanad, //You don’t know the truth..." is rude in extremis in my book and, of course, implies you do know the truth...//
It implies nothing of the sort. You don't know the truth, neither does Theland, and neither do I.
As for Easter, you know the story, or more correctly 'stories'. Which one do you believe - or haven't you noticed the many glaring discrepancies?
It implies nothing of the sort. You don't know the truth, neither does Theland, and neither do I.
As for Easter, you know the story, or more correctly 'stories'. Which one do you believe - or haven't you noticed the many glaring discrepancies?
I don't know the truth. All I know is that I see precious little visible sign of a god/gods who loves us or the creatures s/he/it supposedly created. Likewise, I have had zero sightings of things which match other people's descriptions of what ghosts look like or how they behave.
My ongoing failure to detect anything of a spiritual nature does not, of course, preclude the possibility of their existence but it does assure that I am not in position to know the truth, if their existence is what the truth is.
Reading that back, it is a definition which smacks of agnosticism but every agnostic should really set and then maintain their own baseline standard for evidence sufficient to flip them into the theistic position.
But there's a slight hitch: once you have proof, it's not so much faith from tgat moment on, it is knowledge. Gnosis, ha ha!
(For the record, no, this is not the basis for my choice of user ID :-P )
There is something about the act of -faith- which has supposed health benefits but, if you subtract generic stuff like membership of a club, sing songs, freebies, general being nice to one another, I wonder if any trace of that health benefit still remains?
My ongoing failure to detect anything of a spiritual nature does not, of course, preclude the possibility of their existence but it does assure that I am not in position to know the truth, if their existence is what the truth is.
Reading that back, it is a definition which smacks of agnosticism but every agnostic should really set and then maintain their own baseline standard for evidence sufficient to flip them into the theistic position.
But there's a slight hitch: once you have proof, it's not so much faith from tgat moment on, it is knowledge. Gnosis, ha ha!
(For the record, no, this is not the basis for my choice of user ID :-P )
There is something about the act of -faith- which has supposed health benefits but, if you subtract generic stuff like membership of a club, sing songs, freebies, general being nice to one another, I wonder if any trace of that health benefit still remains?
-- answer removed --
Nice try birdie… you quote the venerable but changeable Wiki and then in an attempt to move the goal posts you state, once again "...As I'm sure you're aware, earlier civilisations such as the Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Sumerians , etc. were all polytheistic religions. Not one religion prior to the Abrahamic religions were monotheistic…" completely disregarding the myriads of scholars (contemporaneous as well as archaic) that straight forwardly state polytheism was the degenerate results of an original monotheism: Such as:
"...When the cuneiform literature first began to reveal its message, scholars of cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics soon found themselves dealing with a tremendous number of gods and goddesses, and demons and other spiritual powers of a lesser sort, which seemed to be always at war with one another and much of the time highly destructive. As earlier and earlier tablets, however, began to be excavated and brought to light, and skill in deciphering them increased, the first picture of gross polytheism began to be replaced by something more nearly approaching a hierarchy of spiritual beings organized into a kind of court with one Supreme Being over all. One of the first cuneiform scholars to acknowledge the significance of this trend was Stephen Langdon of Oxford, and when he reported his conclusions he did so with a consciousness of the fact that he would scarcely be believed. Thus he wrote in 1931:
I may fail to carry conviction in concluding that both in Sumerian and Semitic religions, monotheism preceded polytheism. . . . The evidence and reasons for this conclusion, so contrary to accepted and current views, have been set down with care and with the perception of adverse criticism. It is, I trust, the conclusion of knowledge and not of audacious preconception.
Since Langdon took the view that the Sumerians represent the oldest historic civilization, he added: "In my opinion the history of the oldest civilization of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism and widespread belief in evil spirits. It is in a very true sense the history of the fall of man." (Langdon, Stephen H., Semitic Mythology, Mythology of All Races, vol. 5, Archaeologicl Institute of America, 1931, p.xviii)
"Five years later in an article which appeared in The Scotsman, he wrote: (3)
The history of Sumerian religion, which was the most powerful cultural influence in the ancient world, could be traced by means of pictographic inscriptions almost to the earliest religious concepts of man. The evidence points unmistakeably to an original monotheism, the inscriptions and literary remains of the oldest Semitic peoples also indicate a primitive monotheism, and the totemistic origin of Hebrew and other Semitic religions is now entirely discredited."
Then there's this:
Hence once more we see how polytheism develops subsequently. Reverting once more to Rowe's observation about arguing from the known to the unknown, it may safely be said without the slightest hesitation that monotheism never evolved out of polytheism in any part of the world's earliest history for which we have documentary evidence. As we shall see, this was true also in China.
Muller, Max, Lectures on the Science of Language, 1st series, Scribner's, Armstrong, New York, 1875, pp 21, 22.
Ad infinitum…
Monotheism seems to be the origin of polytheistic religions which altered that one concept of God into many gods personified by nature...
But feeling particularly equanimous this evening, I would offer that there may be historical example where the progression from monotheism to polytheism may be difficult to track or date with certainty since such records rarely exist...
"...When the cuneiform literature first began to reveal its message, scholars of cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics soon found themselves dealing with a tremendous number of gods and goddesses, and demons and other spiritual powers of a lesser sort, which seemed to be always at war with one another and much of the time highly destructive. As earlier and earlier tablets, however, began to be excavated and brought to light, and skill in deciphering them increased, the first picture of gross polytheism began to be replaced by something more nearly approaching a hierarchy of spiritual beings organized into a kind of court with one Supreme Being over all. One of the first cuneiform scholars to acknowledge the significance of this trend was Stephen Langdon of Oxford, and when he reported his conclusions he did so with a consciousness of the fact that he would scarcely be believed. Thus he wrote in 1931:
I may fail to carry conviction in concluding that both in Sumerian and Semitic religions, monotheism preceded polytheism. . . . The evidence and reasons for this conclusion, so contrary to accepted and current views, have been set down with care and with the perception of adverse criticism. It is, I trust, the conclusion of knowledge and not of audacious preconception.
Since Langdon took the view that the Sumerians represent the oldest historic civilization, he added: "In my opinion the history of the oldest civilization of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to extreme polytheism and widespread belief in evil spirits. It is in a very true sense the history of the fall of man." (Langdon, Stephen H., Semitic Mythology, Mythology of All Races, vol. 5, Archaeologicl Institute of America, 1931, p.xviii)
"Five years later in an article which appeared in The Scotsman, he wrote: (3)
The history of Sumerian religion, which was the most powerful cultural influence in the ancient world, could be traced by means of pictographic inscriptions almost to the earliest religious concepts of man. The evidence points unmistakeably to an original monotheism, the inscriptions and literary remains of the oldest Semitic peoples also indicate a primitive monotheism, and the totemistic origin of Hebrew and other Semitic religions is now entirely discredited."
Then there's this:
Hence once more we see how polytheism develops subsequently. Reverting once more to Rowe's observation about arguing from the known to the unknown, it may safely be said without the slightest hesitation that monotheism never evolved out of polytheism in any part of the world's earliest history for which we have documentary evidence. As we shall see, this was true also in China.
Muller, Max, Lectures on the Science of Language, 1st series, Scribner's, Armstrong, New York, 1875, pp 21, 22.
Ad infinitum…
Monotheism seems to be the origin of polytheistic religions which altered that one concept of God into many gods personified by nature...
But feeling particularly equanimous this evening, I would offer that there may be historical example where the progression from monotheism to polytheism may be difficult to track or date with certainty since such records rarely exist...
-- answer removed --
@birdie
Apology barely necessary but accepted anyway.
------
@all
One key feature of monotheistic gods: they tend to be credited with all the attributes required to 'trump' all the polytheists' gods in one swoop.
In order to 'sell' the pantheon to existing monotheistic believers, how would a multiplicity of "weaker", gods (with job descriptions to confine their respective remits) convince anyone to switch brands?
Apology barely necessary but accepted anyway.
------
@all
One key feature of monotheistic gods: they tend to be credited with all the attributes required to 'trump' all the polytheists' gods in one swoop.
In order to 'sell' the pantheon to existing monotheistic believers, how would a multiplicity of "weaker", gods (with job descriptions to confine their respective remits) convince anyone to switch brands?
Clanad, as one who claims to know the bible well, as you do, I really don't think you really need me to provide examples of contradictions in the Easter story. You claim the gospels were written by eye witnesses, which leads me to ask why, in something that is so absolutely fundamental to Christianity, the authors produced such conflicting reports. I think you're evading an embarrassing issue.
Clanad, I've no doubt you know exactly what I'm talking about, but since you insist, and to save me typing it all out, this should suffice....
http://
http://
Clanad, you sound miffed. Anyway, not my own list – no time for that. This is from the internet and slightly edited, but it gives you the general idea. It’s rather lengthy so I’ll post it in sections.
Who were the women at the tomb?
• Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
• Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
• Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
• John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
• Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
• Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47)
• Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
• John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
• Matthew: No (28:2)
• Mark: Yes (16:4)
• Luke: Yes (24:2)
• John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
• Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
• Mark: One young man (16:5)
• Luke: Two men (24:4)
• John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
• Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
• Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
• Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
• John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
Did the women tell what happened?
• Matthew: Yes (28:8)
• Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
• Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
• John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
• Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
• Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
• Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
• John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
• Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
• Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
• John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
• Matthew: Yes (28:9)
• John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
• Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
• Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
• Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
• John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
• Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
• Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
• Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
• Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
• John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
• Mark: No (16:13)
• Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at the appearance?
• Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
• Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
• Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
• John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
• Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
• Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
• John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
• Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
• Matthew: No ascension. Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
• Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
• John: No ascension
• Paul: No ascension
• Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
This is my bit.
If these people were really eyewitnesses to such a momentous event, as you mistakenly claim, such inconsistency seems inconceivable. Incidentally, no historian of the day makes mention of an earthquake or of the dead rising from their tombs and roaming Jerusalem. You’d think someone other than Jesus’ immediate followers would have noticed all that going on.
• Mark: No (16:13)
• Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at the appearance?
• Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
• Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
• Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
• John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
• Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
• Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
• John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
• Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
• Matthew: No ascension. Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
• Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
• John: No ascension
• Paul: No ascension
• Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
This is my bit.
If these people were really eyewitnesses to such a momentous event, as you mistakenly claim, such inconsistency seems inconceivable. Incidentally, no historian of the day makes mention of an earthquake or of the dead rising from their tombs and roaming Jerusalem. You’d think someone other than Jesus’ immediate followers would have noticed all that going on.
@naomi
Actually, stood on the sidelines and equally ignorant of the contradictions you were hinting at, it was equally frustrating that you were avoiding going into details. Your last two posts are thus very handy. Thank you.
Inconsistent witness reports are, regrettably, an all too common aspect of human behaviour.
http://
You have hypothesised, in previous AB threads that the gospels were oral histories, passed down the generations, with embellishments (and deletions?; a bit like mutations and evolution isn't it?) before, eventually being written down. These contradictions are interesting in that it appears the routes or subcultures through which the versions have passed have been geographically separated for some time: so much so that nobody was comparing notes, correcting omissions, removing embellishments and so forth. The church itself has looked after the texts for centuries and somehow never noticed or resolved these discrepancies?
Most odd. Was there a school of thought which holds that contradictions prove the existence of multiple witnesses? In other words, testimonies which match suspiciously closely are probably scripted, done by committee and so on?
Actually, stood on the sidelines and equally ignorant of the contradictions you were hinting at, it was equally frustrating that you were avoiding going into details. Your last two posts are thus very handy. Thank you.
Inconsistent witness reports are, regrettably, an all too common aspect of human behaviour.
http://
You have hypothesised, in previous AB threads that the gospels were oral histories, passed down the generations, with embellishments (and deletions?; a bit like mutations and evolution isn't it?) before, eventually being written down. These contradictions are interesting in that it appears the routes or subcultures through which the versions have passed have been geographically separated for some time: so much so that nobody was comparing notes, correcting omissions, removing embellishments and so forth. The church itself has looked after the texts for centuries and somehow never noticed or resolved these discrepancies?
Most odd. Was there a school of thought which holds that contradictions prove the existence of multiple witnesses? In other words, testimonies which match suspiciously closely are probably scripted, done by committee and so on?
Something I learned from AB recently was that Church services read out bible passages in a particular sequence, a cycle which takes some years to complete. Presumably this means the various gospel versions are read many months apart, not back-to-back. Parishioners' memories are, presumably, not reliable enough to notice the subtle differences?
Anyway, how many centuries did it take for someone to think of doing this comparison and write-up?
Anyway, how many centuries did it take for someone to think of doing this comparison and write-up?
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.