Do You Think Jesus Really Ever Existed?

Not quite. I meant atheists who are not only certain that there is no god but think it's there mission in life to persuade others of that belief: Richard Dawkins. Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, etc. They have local counterparts. I've met some.

You seem to equate "supernatural" with a belief in gods. Perhaps I should have used the term "metaphysical' beliefs--beliefs in things that can't be empirically verified or refuted. Most Buddhists believe in karma and reincarnation, which serve a similar function as a belief in a deity in keeping people on the straight and narrow. I'd call them "supernatural", since they certainly are outside the realm of scientific knowledge but are thought of as very real. Buddhist nakaras (hells) differ from the Christian version in not being eternal (although stays in them can last sextillians of years. Also, Mahayana Buddhists believe in a pantheon of bodhisatvas. Vajrayana Buddhists, at least at a popular level, believe in a spirit-haunted world and practice “deity yoga” (devatayoga). Avalokiteshvara, the deity of compassion, is still venerated, and the fearful Mahakala, with tiara of skulls, is still feared. Of course, the Buddha had his encounter with Mara, which some may interpret metaphorically (as Christians regard Satan), but to common folk is very real. When the Dalai Lama practiced Dolgyal (Shugden) worship, which he now discourages, he might have viewed it in purely metaphorical terms, but I doubt most lay Tibetans do. Even in Theravada Buddhist countries like Thailand, common devotional practice centers on the accumulation of good karma and the avoidance of bad karma for the afterlife. In Thai temples, I was impressed by the fervor of worshipers before statues of the Buddha--similar if not more intense than what I've seen in Catholic churches before statues of saints. It would be hard to convince me that their was a fundamental practical difference in what they were doing.

As for the other "godless" religions, Confucianism and Taoism, you are correct that gods were not a focus of the belief system. Confucius, like the Roman Stoics, believed that the universe was governed by a kind of omnipotent benevolent force called Tien (the Heavens), not necessarily a conscious personal deity. although it had earlier been personified as Shangdi, the Emperor Above All. Tien differs from the cosmology of modern science in that it has a moral character, with which humans should align. Confucianism teaches us how to live in accordance with the Mandate of Heaven. When Confucius says, “At fifty I understood the Mandate of Heaven” (Analects II:4), he refers to his understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Confucianism is not about gods in the western sense and was distinctly this worldly in orientation. But Confucius did not deny the reality of spirits and gods, and he advised people to participate in family and state rituals "as if the spirits were present."

An important thing to understand about Confucianism is that it is usually followed in conjunction with other religions like Buddhism and Taoism, and the latter in particular is enmeshed in traditional Chinese folk religion with spirits and ancestor worship. Westerners who learn from their books that Taoism is a godless religion are often surprised to learn that Taoists venerate supernatural entitites--some sixteen of them--which may be thought of as saints, immortals or demigods who are venerated in much the same way as the devas in Buddhist devatayoga. Taoist 16 Gods and Goddesses Welcome to Taoistsecret.com
The Tao is not a god in the western sense but an impersonal, ineffable force that governs the universe in much the same way as the Confucian Tien. Is this a "supernatural" entity. I my usage of the term, yes. By definition, it is impossible to verify or refute empirically. Yet power and moral rules are attributed to it.

You are certainly correct that both thought that ethical truths were objective, rather than conventional, if that's all you mean by natural law. Plato, however, didn't exactly believe that ethical truths are rooted in human nature. It would be more accurate to say he believed all nature is rooted in ethical truths, the "forms" ideas, or non-physical essences of things, including "the good that is beyond being" (Republic, VI), of which things we encounter in the physical world are imperfect reflections, . Plato's theology is presented mainly in Timaeus. The kosmos is described in Pantheist style as a "god" endowed with a soul. The Monad (The One) is the source, the God above gods, a Pythagorean concept, which manifests through the demiurge. The physical universe is the result of the demiurge , an immortal being who brings into being other immortal beings who are makers of humans as host of a divine soul, the Logos. In Laws,, Plato tells is that men must believe three things to support civil order: three key tenets: that gods exist,; that they care about us and the universe; and that they cannot be bought by prayer and sacrifice.

Aristotle was more down to earth, in making inductions and deductions from the observed physical universe. But there were still theological (or shall we say "teleological") perspectives.The creator was an Unmoved Mover, or first cause (Aristotle, Metaphysics)--a thinking entity whose thought is itself. This entity is the grand telos (purpose) toward which everything in the universe strives. Telos, purpose, was the essence of everything in nature, forming the basis for deducing principles of natural law. Compare this with the typical outlook of modern secularists:The universe is devoid of purpose, except those attributed to it by humans. It somehow just happened, and right and wrong are essentially conventional concepts devised by humans. These are precisely the beliefs which Plato thought to be incompatible with a sound legal order.

I never said it would be wrong to teach morals through religion...that is probably one of it's only redeeming values.

I agree that teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically is harmful. However, there are Christians in the Abrahamic tradition, admittedly a minority, who do a pretty good job of being critical thinkers while following Jesus' gospel of peace, love and understanding. I've been fortunate to find such folks, mainly in Sunday school classes at Methodist and First Christian churches. They aren't all that way. At the Methodist church, the progressive Christians meet upstairs, while the downstairs Sunday School is traditional Christian. And the First Christian group meets in members' homes, while attending Sunday services with their more traditional neighbors. I also attend a freethinkers group for additional "critical perspective".

 

Happy to oblige.

Asserting there is no God is a belief (an acceptance that something is true, or "trust, faith or confidence in something or someone" To declare "there is no God" requires supporting evidence, not just the absence of evidence. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. The safer approach is agnosticism. There is no evidence, so I can't know whether or not there is a God. Or "soft atheism": "I don't believe in God, on the basis of an absence of evidence." (placing the emphasis on subjective conviction).

LOL. I think stronger language is in order. If you've read their books, they're mainly polemics aimed at attacking religion.
Dawkins' The God Delusion is essentially philosophy and history of religion written by a biologist, with predictable results. He compares religion to the Aids virus, mad cow disease , and smallpox--comparably evil, but religion harder to eradicate. (Humanist (Jan./Feb, 1997), p. 26. .Harris says: "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." He believes all religion is evil, and that moderate and progressive proponents like me are equally culpable as enablers. The Sun Magazine - The Temple Of Reason Hitchens' book, God Is Not Great, is subtitled "How Religion Poisons Everything". He proceeds to try to illustrate this, including Buddhism and Gandhi. For Buddhism, he offers us the examples of violent monks in Sri Lanka and Burma, Japanese Zen miltarism, and, yes, the Dali Lama, who welcomed the Indian government's nuclear tests. And Gandhi allegedly beat his wife. (Hitchens had some vices of his own, including an admiration for G.W. Bush/Cheney and their war in Iraq,--but, hey...) The mildest of the four is Daniel Dennett, who, like Dawkins, compares religion to a virus and says: "a lot of people are really afflicted by their religion, and I would love to see them cured." BBC, HARDtalk interview by Stephen Sackur, April 1, 2013). In Breaking the Spell, he hopes that by showing religion is "nothing but" a human artifact , meeting the psychological, social, and political needs of humans, that it will fade away. He manages to prove the Biblical maxim "seek and ye shall find" marshaling facts to support his preconceptions. My point in discussing these authors is not to suggest that their ideas are without merit. I learned a lot from reading them, and continue to do so. But to say that these are merely persons "proselytizing science" is, as I said, LOL. They fit my concept of doctrinaire atheists who are probably impervious to any challenge to their firmly held beliefs.

The question is, how would they go about raising their kids? Would they try to keep these intensely held views to themselves? Should they even try? Would doing so cause them to burst a blood vessel and have the kids grow up fatherless? I suspect that somewhere along the line, their views would spill out. So what? I'd forgive them for sparing their kids exposure to a deadly "virus". And if they did a good job of keeping their opinions to themselves, what would happen when little Johnny comes home thumping his Bible? But how will Johnny relate to his religious friends, who at the moment are in the great majority of the population in the U.S.? (Scandanavia, of course, is a different story.) Yes, Virginia, there are militant atheists. Besides the ones I discussed, I know plenty of them. They tend to be products of certain kinds of religious upbringing, like several Nazerenes who were given a steady dose of "hell fire and damnation" growing up and think all religion is like that. This has been called "toxic faith syndrome".
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004KABC5I/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Toxic Faith | SWRC
5 Warning signs of a toxic faith
I recall some years ago on HF, a poor guy worrying that Satan had made him, cuz he was gay and God couldn't have made something that bad. And I recall saying to myself, "Where is Ricard Dawkins when you really need him?" But for some of us, religion can be a source of meaning in life. For me and my wife, our religious beliefs are the most important thing in our lives. Before we got married, she told me that I needed to know that God would always come first, and she couldn't do anything she thought would be inconsistent with her religion. I was glad to hear that, since I think it's true by definition. God is the ultimate value, Ultimate Meaning. God is, among other things, the summation of human idealism. (John Dewey)

And what of atheists? Can they be good? Of course they can. Saint Justin Martyr assured us in the second century, that "those who live according to reason are Christians, even though they be accounted atheists." I'd never put it in such a patronizing way to my atheist friends, but I believe that those who follow conscience on a secular humanist path can arrive at the same destination as folks who do the same through religion.

 

I disagree. I think that asserting anything, particularly as emphatically as the New Atheists do, requires proof. Law Web: Basic principle of burden of proof; he who asserts must prove

Science doesn't have to prove the existence of anything. Science concerns itself with falsifiable propositions, so "God", Flying Spaghetti Monsters" , etc, are outside the scope of scientific inquiry, which doesn't mean they don't exist.

surely you don't mean to suggest that concepts based on human experience can be used to determine the "probabiliity" of the existence of an entity which supposedly created the cosmos and humanity! When it comes to ultimate cosmology, we're moving into the realm of metaphysics, and the prudent scientist should proceed with caution.

That's way above my pay grade. The best I could do is try to explain why I believe in one. Later.

Try A Common Faith (1934).

She didn't specify, but I'd assume murder, arson, larceny, incest, bestiality, assault and battery, buglary, robbery, peodphilia, war mongering, voting for Trump, etc. When it comes to ultimate cosmology, we're moving into the realm of metaphysics, at which point the prudent scientist should bow out.

Exactly.

That was the point. They (and I thought you) were suggesting that it's wrong for religious folks to inculcate their views into their kids. Same difference.

 

I don't think it matters whether you're asserting something affirmatively or asserting non-existence firmly. The example of ghosts is interesting, since most people in our society disbelieve in them, unlike God, whom most people claim to believe in. There are of course exceptions, like the fans of Ghost Hunters, Ghost Adventures, Haunted Collector, Ghost Hunters International,etc. But if ghosts were something a sizeable component of society took seriously,, including highly educated people, and some who claim to have seen them, yes, you'd need to explain why you're so sure there are none. I'd agree that it's okay and desirable to teach your kids there are such things, but that's mainly because there's such a strong cultural consensus against them.

I already did. The gospels say Jesus was a crucified Messiah, contrary to Jewish traditions. If He were made up, why would they say that? The Bible says John the Baptist baptized Jesus. If He were made up, why would they say a sinless man had to be cleansed of sin, and by an inferior? Here's another: The Bible says Jesus was from Nazareth, and then goes through two contradictory nativity stories to explain that He was born in Bethlehem in keeping with Messianic prophecy. If they made Him up, why would they bring an obscure village like Nazareth into the picture? Why not Yeshua ha Bethlehem? etc.

The experiences on which observations about probability were based.

Exactly. That was my point. If you're familiar with the cosmological theories of modern astrophysics, they go beyond empirically refutable propositions into the realm of metaphysics. Take, for example, multiple alternate universes, which are often invoked to explain what would otherwise be remarkable regularities in our universe that could be finely tuned. . How many of those have been established empirically? None at all. How likely is it that will ever happen. Not likely at all, on the basis of existing science and technology. What is another name for a theory which cannot be empirically falsified, besides unscientific? Metaphysics. What we can say about them now is that they might exist.

But you don't, because we know that's a satirical character.

I don't think it's a good idea to teach dogmatic anything. Same goes for doctrinaire atheism.

Nonsense. Atheists like the Four Horsemen and others I know believe firmly and resolutely that God does not exist, and are highly resistant to challenges to your point of view. This is called "hard" atheism.
Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia
Is Atheism a Belief or a Lack of Belief?
The Scientific Atheism Fallacy: How Science Declares that God Is Dead, But Can't Prove It
Dogma:"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." (Oxford Dictionaries)

 

I'm saying that really in every case a firm assertion of non-existence in the form of "There is no..." is an assertion , even if it is denying the existence of something, and requires supporting evidence and can't just be assumed to be true. Why do you believe there are no ghosts? Probably for the same reason I do. Nobody whose judgment we respect in our society believes in them. But what if if the vast majority of educated people you respect believed in the little green men with the cheeseburgers and sardine eating Martians, and they can give reasons for so believing, some even claim to have seen them, etc. Could you just say "There are none, period, and it's wrong to say there are?" I'm afraid that if you did that in a debate, the judges would score you down big time, because a firm denial on a controversial subject is equivalent to an assertion.

Ah, but you're assuming the conclusion that belief in God is an imaginary concept. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, a majority of U.S.scientists believe in God or a higher power. Scientists and Belief. Of course that's considerably fewer than the 95% of Americans who believe in some form of deity. (Ibid) Newsweek (July20,1998) even ran a story "Science Finds God" about the phenomenon. Why do they believe? For a variety of reasons, but a number of them have been impressed by the "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of the universe. Scientists who challenge this do so mainly on the basis of multiple universes which could account statistically for the integrated complexity of one. What is the empirical evidence for multiple universes. There is none. It is one of those "imaginary constructs" you were talking about. Does the fact that a majority of scientists believe in some sort of Deity or Higher power constitute evidence that there is one? Not at all, unless thy arrive at their belief on the basis of science, which they don't. But it at least shows that reasonable people, presumably including scientists, can be convinced that there are reasons to believe in God, "imaginary construct' or not. And I think it would take a remarkable degree of intellectual arrogance to say "What do they know? Of course there is no God."

Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all. None of which, even if you could prove you're right, addresses the divinity of Jesus.I don't follow this at all. I thought the reality of the existence of Jesus was based on human experience as related in the bible?Sorry to have confused you. The argument is a bit subtle, and involves using the gospels against themselves. I'm assuming that you don't believe what the Bible says, but I'm guessing you probably believe that the Bible exists as the main scripture presenting accounts of Jesus. The "New Testament" was written to convince people of Jesus' existence, his miraculous powers, his status as the promised Messiah, and the truth of His message. IF (yes, that's the word!) they were making up a purely fictional account of a purely fictional person, my assumption is they wouldn't include details which seemed inconsistent with his Messianic character. They probably wouldn't have him die in a manner which Jewish tradition says would make him cursed (Deut. 21:23) and would fit neither the military nor priestly missions of the traditional messiah; they wouldn't have him baptized to have him cleansed of sins He wasn't supposed to have, by a man who was supposed to by his spiritual inferior; and they wouldn't have him linked to a hick town like Nazareth when everybody knew the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem. Of course, the gospel writers had answers to these questions. They combed the Old Testament and found the passages in Isaiah about the Suffering Servant (believed by Jews to have been about Israel, itself) not originally part of the messianic tradition. Matthew and Luke have somewhat convoluted explanations about why John is Baptizing Jesus. And they also have different (I would say contradictory) accounts of how Jesus happened to be born in Bethlehem: Matthew having the holy family living there and moving to Nazareth after the return from Egypt, Luke having them go from Nazareth to Bethlehem because Joseph was born there and allegedly (implausibly) had to go there to be counted for purposes of the Roman census. I have not offered these as "proof" that Jesus really did exist, only as details that make me and various other thinking persons think He may actually have existed, including atheist "horseman" Christopher Hitchens. "The very attempts to bend and stretch the story may be inverse proof that someone of later significance was indeed born,so that in retrospect, and to fulfill the prophecies, the evidence had to be massaged to some extent." (God Is Not Great, p 114.)

But the multiverse theory is, from a practical standpoint, not falsifiable. It is, however, taken quite seriously
Yes, a concept invented by man.
Again, pointing out the flaws of various religions is not a dogma.
Your argument seems to be hard atheists, your term, don't believe in a god (or Jesus to stick to the thread) and they can't prove he doesn't exist...therefore he must exist. And therefore atheism is an official system of unquestionable truths which must prove the non existence of god or Jesus or be consider just another silly exercise in anti religious bigotry.
And since they can't disprove an unprovable concept they themselves are in error and are wrong to criticize those unprovable concepts.

No, you have offered your opinion of writings from the Bible. Note the word IF. Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all. None of which, even if you could prove you're right, addresses the divinity of Jesus.I don't follow this at all. I thought the reality of the existence of Jesus was based on human experience as related in the bible?

Astrophysics is based on science. Astrophysics is based on the laws and observations of mathematics, geology, spectroscopy, chemistry, physics, etc. Theories such as alternate universes are just that theories or hypothesis, not beliefs or facts such as the religious claim of a divine Jesus.
Theories and hypothesis are based on science.
Yes, a concept invented by man.
Again, pointing out the flaws of various religions is not a dogma.
Your argument seems to be hard atheists, your term, don't believe in a god (or Jesus to stick to the thread) and they can't prove he doesn't exist...therefore he must exist. And therefore atheism is an official system of unquestionable truths which must prove the non existence of god or Jesus or be consider just another silly exercise in anti religious bigotry.
And since they can't disprove an unprovable concept they themselves are in error and are wrong to criticize those unprovable concepts.
Persecution complex.[/QUOTE]

 

I'm saying that really in every case a firm assertion of non-existence in the form of "There is no..." requires supporting evidence and can't just assume to be true. Why do you believe there are no ghosts? Probably for the same reason I do. Nobody whose judgment we respect in our society believes in them. That's not a good reason for not believing in them, but it's a typical human reason, so I give you a pass on that. You might say "Because I've seen no evidence", but I'll bet there are lots of things you believe in without having seen direct personal evidence. The moon landings, for example, although some folks aren't convinced. But what if if the vast majority of educated people you respect believe in the little green men with the cheeseburgers and sardine eating Martians, and they can give reasons for so believing, some even claim to have seen them, etc. Could you just say "There are none, period, and it's wrong to say there are?" I'm afraid that if you did that in a debate, the judges would score you down big time, because a firm denial on a controversial subject is equivalent to an assertion.

Ah, but you're assuming the conclusion that belief in God is an imaginary concept. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, a majority of U.S.scientists believe in God or a higher power. Scientists and Belief. Of course that's considerably fewer than the 95% of Americans who believe in some form of deity. (Ibid) Newsweek (July20,1998) even ran a story "Science Finds God" about the phenomenon. Why do they believe? For a variety of reasons, but a number of them have been impressed by the "fine tuning" of the fundamental constants of the universe. Scientists who challenge this do so mainly on the basis of multiple universes which could account statistically for the integrated complexity of one. What is the empirical evidence for multiple universes. Not much. It is one of those "imaginary constructs" you were talking about, like Superstring--a one-dimensional string existing in ten dimensions, only four of which are evident. No evidence for that, either, but in the context of M-theory mathematicians think it might hold the key to the Theory of Everything.

Does the fact that a majority of scientists believe in some sort of Deity or Higher power constitute evidence that there is one? Not at all, unless thy arrive at their belief on the basis of science, which they don't. But it at least shows that reasonable people, presumably including scientists, can be convince that there are reasons to believe in God, "imaginary construct' or not. And I think it would take a remarkable degree of intellectual arrogance to say "What do they know? Of course there is no God."

Sorry to have confused you. The argument is a bit subtle, and involves using the gospels against themselves. I'm assuming that you don't believe what the Bible says, but I'm guessing you probably believe that the Bible exists as the main scripture presenting accounts of Jesus. The "New Testament" was written to convince people of Jesus' existence, his miraculous powers, his status as the promised Messiah, and the truth of His message. IF (yes, that's the word!) they were making up a purely fictional account of a purely fictional person, my assumption is they wouldn't include details which seemed inconsistent with his Messianic character. They probably wouldn't have him die in a manner which Jewish tradition says would make him cursed (Deut. 21:23) and would fit neither the military nor priestly missions of the traditional messiah; they wouldn't have him baptized to have him cleansed of sins He wasn't supposed to have, by a man who was supposed to by his spiritual inferior; and they wouldn't have him linked to a hick town like Nazareth when everybody knew the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem. Of course, the gospel writers had answers to these questions. They combed the Old Testament and found the passages in Isaiah about the Suffering Servant (believed by Jews to have been about Israel, itself) not originally part of the messianic tradition. Matthew and Luke have somewhat convoluted explanations about why John is Baptizing Jesus. And they also have different (I would say contradictory) accounts of how Jesus happened to be born in Bethlehem: Matthew having the holy family living there and moving to Nazareth after the return from Egypt, Luke having them go from Nazareth to Bethlehem because Joseph was born there and allegedly (implausibly) had to go there to be counted for purposes of the Roman census. I have not offered these as "proof" that Jesus really did exist, only as details that make me and various other thinking persons think He may actually have existed, including atheist "horseman" Christopher Hitchens. "The very attempts to bend and stretch the story may be inverse proof that someone of later significance was indeed born,so that in retrospect, and to fulfill the prophecies, the evidence had to be massaged to some extent." (God Is Not Great, p 114.)
It does seem to me that dismissing the Bible and the Jewish historical context of the first century does limit your ability to assess the likely authenticity or inauthenticity of particular events or persons in scripture. You were unable to determine , or example, that I was not simply echoing the Bible on the issues pertaining to crucifixion, Nazareth, and John the Baptist. Your ability to assess the authenticity of Jesus and His movement seems a bit limited that way.

But the multiverse theory is, from a practical standpoint, not falsifiable. It is, however, taken quite seriously by lots of eminent scientists. like Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, for example, Michio Kaku, or physicist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology, who elaborates the idea in Something Deeply Hidden that in parallel universes we might be making make different decisions, and might in fact agree on this subject we've been debating (if it would be accurate to describe our parallel counterparts as you and I). It is quite apparent that these scientists take the concept seriously and think it has useful functions. Same here for me with God.

A concept invented by man as satire.

It is if it is taught as a steady diet of one-sided diatribe, like I was taught about the flaws of liberals and Democrats. (Obviously, it wasn't effective).

"Hard atheists" isn't "my" term. It's a term widely used, even by atheists, who have decided that it's indefensible and they're better off defending soft atheism.
Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia
Jean Kazez: Hard Atheism, Soft Atheism
What does hard atheism mean? - Quora

Woah! That doesn't sound like my argument, cuz it's stupid. The "therefore" part is completely off base. The existence or non-existence of Jesus has nothing to do with the beliefs or non-beliefs of atheists.

Absolutely wild. What I actually said is that some atheists are anti-religious. The "hard atheists" can't prove God doesn't exist, so they should maybe not be dogmatic in making that claim, although they can provide evidence that leads them to disbelieve in God (which would make them just "soft atheists")

On whose part?

 

Yeah, this is all there is to it. The message of unconditional love and the golden rule. These are the basics and as they say in sports, champions are supposed to be brilliant at the basics.

But people tend to overlook it and focus on the irrelevant instead. Whether Jesus lived or not is not relevant. His teachings of living a virtuous life of love and present moment awareness are what is relevant and can give a roadmap or framework for living.

 

You keep moving the goal posts. I thought we were talking about the existence of Jesus, not a belief in the reality of an Abrahamic God and Jesus. Actually, I think there's probably at least as much secular scholarly consensus on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the man, not the god man) as there is on the multiverse and perhaps as much (or little) empirical evidence. The fact that you won't read the books doesn't mean it's not there. We have an abundance of gospel sources claiming to be based on actual encounters with Jesus--the canonical gospels of the New Testament, the Apocrypha and pseudopigrapha, thirteen Gnostic gospels, the gospels of the Nasoreans, the Ebionites, and the Twelve, the eight infancy gospels, and fragments of others, based on a variety of oral traditions, plus the letters of Paul, James, Peter, and Judas, the Roman references by Pliny the Younger, Seutonius, and Tacitus, and the Jewish sources of Josephus and Rabbinic sources in the Talmud. What empirical evidence do we have to support a multiverse? Paul Davies, professor of mathematical physics at the University of Adelaide, comments: "To postulate an infinity of unseen and unseeable universes just to explain the one we do see seems like a case of excess baggage carried to an extreme. It is simpler to postulate one unseen God." This would be in accord with the principle of Occam's razor, often used by scientists to resolve differences in alternative theoretical explanations.

I think we may differ on epistemology and burden of proof. You seem to be taking a logical positivist position, at least on this issue: anything that can't be empirically verified by a preponderance of the evidence (except maybe the multiverse) shouldn't be believed. Even the architect of that proposition, A.J. Ayer, stopped believing it, since he noticed it can't be empirically verified. Michael Polanyi managed to convince the scientific community that it would be more appropriate to say that anything that can't be empirically falsified. Anyhow, that's an appropriate standard for doing science, but not necessarily the best for doing life or history. Ancient history is often a judgment call, in which we look at the available evidence and decide what is the most plausible interpretation. Texts, themselves, even those coming from within a religious community, can provide clues that persuade us of their authenticity, when considered in the context of a culture and time period.

The fact you've brought this up three times suggests to me you think it's a serious argument. Are you saying that because we can deliberately make things up we can assume the existence of Jesus was likewise deliberately made up, or that it's a common practice to make up historical figures? It comes down to a threshold evidence of how much and what quality of evidence we need to make the leap of faith that Socrates, the Buddha, etc., existed. I'm satisfied that they both existed, but I don't believe in he Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

That would be my experience as well. Toxic faith syndrome. As I said,several of the more militant atheists I know are former Nazerenes, brought up in the tradition of "hell fire and damnation".

I guess the same could be said of all the terms I use.

No. Atheists must only prove an unprovable (God doesn't exist) if they assert that. If they just say they don't believe in one, and here's why..., that gets them off the hook. (Even Dawkins has learned to say (coyly) there "probably is no God." And religious folks are in the same boat. I myself couldn't begin to prove the existence of God or anything else but my own existence, in the sense of supplying evidence and arguments that would convince most people. To me, it's something that I bet on that seems to work in my life and meets the test of Occam's razor. It's called "faith", defined by Luther as a "joyful bet". I also like to make "educated" bets, consistent with available evidence and supported by substantial evidence. If I were more dogmatic in my assertions, I'd have to come up with proof, and I'm not impressed by the "proofs" that have been put forward so far.

I don't quite follow you here. The first part I emphatically agree with. Unfortunately, many of the most vocal exemplars of the Christian religion are Latter Day Pharisees--hypocrites and narrow-minded busybodies who are the very antithesis of what Jesus (if He existed) stood for. Many of whom are the core of Trump's voting base. It seems to have been part of Jesus' mission (if He existed) to stand up to such folks, but ironically and typically they've hijacked His trademark and copyright. Part of their schtick is to claim persecution by evil secularists--similar to Trump's routine about how he's being persecuted by the librul media and Nancy Pelosi. If that's what you mean, I agree with you, but don't quite see how it fits into the discussion. If you mean it would be okay for atheists to teach their kids that what these people are doing is off base, I'd agree with you. I think it would be unfortunate if they taught them "That's what religion is."

 

Musta been the nuns with the rulers. Of course, Jews gave us the Abrahamic God, and saying Jesus or any human would be God or a part of God was a stoning offense. Same goes in spades with Islam. Muslims believe that the Prophet Issa (Jesus) was one of the greatest, and will come again at end times, but God? There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. If you want to venture into the dangerous territory of secular Jesus scholarship, you might try Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God in which he details the process by which people came to believe such a thing. The earliest Christians didn't believe it. They believed that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption at His baptism. As Christianity spread through the Greco-Roman world, a more supernatural concept of Jesus took hold. The John Gospel, believed to be the last of the Four, written near the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, presents Him as being the Logos, present at the creation of the Universe. Arius argued that the Father and the Son were separate entities, the son separate and subordinate to the Father and created by Him. He had quite a following. Jehovah's Witnesses still hold that view today, and tend to identify Jesus as the Archangel Michael. The idea of the Trinity was introduced by Tertulian, who nevertheless reserved the title "God" for the Father.It was Athanasius who pushed the idea of a Trinity of mystically separate persons in one deity. This view was adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Depending on what you mean by divine,you can, we did, and still do in some circles. The Jehovah's Witnesses would be the best example.

I provided these earlier, near the beginning of our dialogue. Bart Ehrman (2012) Did Jesus Exist?; Robert Van Voorst (2000) Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence; Mark Allen Powell (1998) Jesus as a Figure in History; Maurice Casey (2014) Jesus: Evidence and Arguments.

 

We can leave it at that, but I find it puzzling. When you say the theory of mulituniverses "is based on 2,000 years of various sciences, academic learning, and experimentation", I take it you're talking about the speculations of Chryssipus and a few other thinkers of the ancient world who are generally not what we think of as scientists today. They may have performed experiments, but they were fruitless in establishing the multiverse. The multiverse theory in its modern form can be credited to Schroedinger in 1952, as an outgrowth of quantum theory.

All this is of course irrelevant, since the fact remains the theory is not empirically grounded, but exists as equations on blackboards. I'd agree that the theory of a Divine God/Jesus is based on a 2,000 year dogmeaic text, but that's not what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about whether a human named Yehsua ha Nosri lived back then in Galilee, was thought to be the Messiah, attracted a large following, ran afoul of the Temple and Roman authorities, was crucified, and became the subject of a cult, which we might consider a forerunner of the Elvis cult--the idea that He rose from the dead. The existence of such a figure is reported in that 2,00 year-old text, but also in the canonical gospels of the New Testament, the Apocrypha and pseudopigrapha, thirteen Gnostic gospels, the gospels of the Nasoreans, the Ebionites, and the Twelve, the eight infancy gospels, and fragments of others, based on a variety of oral traditions, plus the letters of Paul, James, Peter, and Judas, the Roman references by Pliny the Younger, Seutonius, and Tacitus, and the Jewish sources of Josephus and Rabbinic sources in the Talmud. The great majority of reputable secular historians who have examined these writings in the context of what we know about Jewish society at the time conclude that it is more plausible than not that such a figure existed.

No, I quoted mathematical physicist Paul Davies to that effect. Let me provide another source that makes essentially the same point without reference to Occam's razor, this from science writer and agnostic Bruce Mazet in an article in Skeptic magazine entitled , who notes: "there is no evidence whatsoever that this infinite number of hypothetical universes exist, and according to cosmologists who postulate these hypothetical universes , there is no means by which to obtain any such evidence...I suggest that if it is acceptable to postulate the existence of hypothetical universes, it is acceptable to postulate the existence of God." (Skeptic (1998), 6/2;50-55. I'm not going that far. I'm just postulating the existence of the man Jesus who became the subject of a resurrection cult.

This is what's known in the field of logical fallacies as "reductio ad absurdum". By that logic, no scientific theory would be proven, since the simplest of all explanations is that things are as they are. Occam's razor is designed to chose between two alternative theories, each of which has some merit. In this case, the two are the finely tuned universe (the one that we know) and the multiverse (the one that we don't know, and that requires complicated assumptions. I thought Davies stated the case for choosing the former on the basis of Occam's razor rather well.

Not quite. I'm claiming that "2,000 years of various sciences, academic learning, and experimentation" which really amounts mostly to speculation (mostly by a few authors in antiquity and a number of respected scientists of our own time,and has yet to produce empirically testable results is less credible than the documentation for Jesus which I mentioned supra.

Occam's razor is commonly used in science to prefer one theory over another. For example, it's the main reason we decided to opt for the heliocentric Copernican theory over the Ptolmeic theory that the sun revolves around the earth: too many complex assumptions needed to be made to retain Ptolemy's theory. Parsimony was an important in Einstein's formulation of special relativity]and Plank's development of quantum mechanics. Karl Popper explains we prefer the simpler theories "because their empirical content is greater; and because they are better testable". The Logic of Scientifc Discovery, p.121. However, it's not an iron law, and it is used to chose between two theories which seem plausible. We have lots of reasons for rejecting explanations based on the activities of gods. I tend to agree with Hume that claims of extraordinary happenings require extraordinary evidence. That's why I tend not to believe Jesus was a miracle worker. However, there is nothing extraordinary about the claim that he was a messic prophet of the first century who was crucified by the Romans. He certainly wasn't the only one, but He was the only one who made a lasting impression. The choice is is it more plausible to believe He was a real man who walked the earth or an imaginary creation of some anonymous source. This is best judged by seeing if anything said about him rigns true. I believe Socrates existed, atlhough Plato might have made him up along with his ideas. I'm impressed by Xeonophon's testimony he was a standup guy, but even more impressed by the play Clouds by Aristophanes which lampoons him. Ordinarily, if your friends say nice things about you, their credibility may be in doubt, but if your critics say nasty things, that's stronger evidence you exist. Which brings us to the intervention attempted by Jesus' family who thought he had lost it. "(Mat. 12:47Someone told Him, “Look, Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You
48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"49Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers.…" That to me has an authentic ring to it, and screams "CULT"!

I think we may have reached an impasse here. This is becoming tedious. It reminds me of the arguments I have with my MAGA-hatted friends about whether or not Trump should serve a second term. I think I face similar problems: I see no evidence that anybody else is interested in the discussion: it's just you and me. My MAGA friends pride themselves in not following the news, except for Fox. You seem to be skeptical that any book on the subject by a refutable historian is worth your time. So here we are. But I did enjoy the discussion and found it very worthwhile.

BTW, in closing I might explain that although it is mainstream Christian doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God who exists before time and came to earth to die for our sins, not all people who call themselves Christians believe that. I belong to not one but two groups of progressive Christians who basically adhere to Borg theology (Marcus, that is) which takes an historical-metaphorical approach to the Bible, believes that Jesus was about peace, love and understanding (even before Timothy Leary), and that the proper mission of Christians is to be Social Justice Warriors. Amen