Prove god?

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

I have been an atheist for a while and have always been looking for an argument that will prove the existence of A GOD. A GOD is in all caps to show that I am not looking for you to prove the christian god or the greek gods, all i want is proof of the existence of a higher power that created all things. He does not have to be a moral being, nor does he have to give to craps about his creation. I just want someone to prove that he is there (I use he because in the English language we assume masculine when no gender is put forth). So anyone of any background of any knowledge level go for it. 

Oh and as a side note, yes you do have to prove that god is there, i don't have to prove he is not. It is like asking someone to prove that a dragon exists when the dragon will become undetectable the minute a person looks at is. The same is true for god. He does not exist in our plane of being as I have been told oh so many times and therefore cannot be detected in any way. So don't come in here and say that I have to prove that there is no god. That is for another debate.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I'm sorry, but you cannot say there is "no" proof. All you can say is that you do not believe in the proofs that others present. To say there is "no" proof, implies you believe that the gospels et al do not exist.

[Lori S.]

The gospels aren't proof, not in the sense being asked for here.

I'm a Christian.  I read the gospels.  I believe the gospels are true, in the sense that they communicate something real and meaningful about God and people.  But they do not prove the existence of God in any way.  They don't even prove the existence of Jesus, although their existence provides a compelling case that he at least existed.  All they prove, in a meaningful sense of the word, is that a community of people once believed certain things about God and about Jesus.  We can then choose what to do with that.

The whole reason people have faith is because there is no proof.  The gospels wouldn't discuss faith if there were proof, right?  I don't need faith in things that are proven.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

There is a difference between proof vs conclusive proof. The Gospels provide proof supporting Jesus's existance and divinity, but they do not prove it 100% outright. You do, naturally, have to make a step of faith yourself. However, they do provide support for the existance of Jesus, since they are eye witness accounts of his life. Much the same way that any body of eye witness accounts are testimony to the evidence of that person's existance.

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

Actually they do not in anyway prove the mere existence of Jesus. The same way all of the harry potter books and fan fictions do not make harry potter real. If the criteria for the existence and divinity of a person were just that they must have ancient texts supporting them, then surely you must also believe in the existence and divinity of Hercules, and the Greek and Roman gods. As well as the gods of the ancient Egyptians. The bible is just another false religious text used to control people as all religion does. As I have said just because you have a bunch of old books written about you does not make you real and does not make you holy. What it does is prove that some ancient writers are pulling a fast one on the world. We are really not all that difficult to fool, all it takes is a book with some age. If we took all ancient texts as absolute fact just because they are old. If I used your criteria for proof then we would all be living on a flat surface that is also a sphere that orbits around the sun yet is the center of the universe with all things orbiting around it, all of this being controlled by fate and the one true god Allah and hundreds of his closest omnipotent friends who all live in the land of the dead and mount Olympus and in the clouds, we would also share the earth with dragons, giants, trolls, ogres, etc etc. As we can see simply because a book is written and worshiped as truth does not mean that it is true. The same is true for the bible. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Actually they do not in anyway prove the mere existence of Jesus. The same way all of the harry potter books and fan fictions do not make harry potter real.

Fine, so by your logic, I'll claim Ceaser is a fictional character then...

Seriously. This argument is so old.

If the criteria for the existence and divinity of a person were just that they must have ancient texts supporting them, then surely you must also believe in the existence and divinity of Hercules, and the Greek and Roman gods.

No, the critera is the NATURE of the texts. No one would seriously compare the accounts of Jesus life to that of the accounts of Herculeus, because they are not literary parralels. They are very different styles, very different contexts, not eye witness accounts, etc. You don't paint yourself as anything like a historical expect if you seriously try to compare the Gospel accounts with the texts of Greek myths.

As we can see simply because a book is written and worshiped as truth does not mean that it is true.

I didn't say that the fact that it is worshiped is what makes the Bible true. Your ranting style is not revealing in you a serious debater.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

No, no, no. You do the potential validity of your argument no favours by repeatedly relying on this false equivalency.

I'm not comparing the amount of evidence, I'm comparing the evidence on his grounds. IE ancient texts.

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

First and for most it is not for you to decided what a "serious debater" is. I do not share your style of debate, this does not make me any more or less serious than you. However if you think I am not a "serious debater" that is your opinion, I would however like to point out that I am a debater, that is what I do at school. Some people play sports, I debate. I hold first place in my district as well as 5th place in the state of Pennsylvania. This forum is not my best I will admit, but I must put on my "serious debater" hat then fine, I will. 

Now as far as I can see we are currently debating weather the bible is or is not a historical proof.  

Contention 1: For a text to be considered fact it must be written by a relatively unbiased source.

Contention 2: The bible is clearly  a biased source.

Contention 3: The amount of people who believe that a text is fact does not make that text fact and therefor simple because the bible has a devout following does not make it truth. 

Contention 1: For a text to be considered fact the writer must have as little bias as possible. I will use your example of Ceaser. There were quite a few of them so lets just say Julius Ceaser. He is obviously a real person because not only have Roman historians wrote about him, he can be found in several Egyptian texts, as well as the texts of many roman territories. He also has people writing about him both those who followed him and those who sought to destroy him and the empire he created. This shows that clearly he existed. Now as for this Jesus character we do not see that sort of proof. In fact even the accounts that are in the modern day bible were not written till 100 years after his death by some accounts. These accounts were all written by those who followed him. Even the historian Josephus who wrote what is considered the complete history of the Jewish empire to the time of the roman conquest did not put Jesus in his manuscript. It was added in later by the Romans when they made Christianity their state religion. There are no records from the time of his life that would show his existence. Even the famous census taken in the beginning of the bible does not show him in it. This shows that he could simply be a character in a story like all other created by a group of Jews attempting to gain power through religion. It is not the first time people did it and was not the last.

Contention 2: The bible is clearly a biased source. As I stated in contention one all other historical figures have support for their existence in multiple places. As for Jesus he is only found in the gospels and doctored records. This shows that people attempting to gain power could have easily deposited him into history and then used this new religion to take over the roman empire. The group then used the texts to take control of all of Europe in the dark ages and then still use them to control the faithful. Over all this time people have forgotten that the texts were completely made up and those who do have that knowledge still use it to attempt to control the followers of the religion. 

Contention 3: Though the religion of Christianity has a large following that does not make the texts true. Just because a lot of people believe in something does not make it so. Millions of children believe in Santa Clause, that does not make him so. Millions believed in Zeus that does not make him so. Just because a group of people share a common lie it does not make it real. The bible is no more factually accurate than the Egyptian book of the dead, the Jewish Torah, or the Nordic rune stones. All that it does is declare an untruth to be true and support a magic man in the sky. It has been used to control the masses as all religion has done. 

Refutation 1: You state that the nature of the texts is different therefor making them incomparable. Simply because one writer uses the Epic Poem style and another used the Biographical style does not mean that they are incompatible. It is like saying that is a movie is based on a book or a play the we cannot compare the movie to the book or play because they use a different style. Harry Potter= Harry Potter weather you read it or watch it. 

Refutation 2: I was not using my own logic, I was simply applying the logic you used. You stated that because Jesus is a character in the Bible and has divinity in that book then therefore he must be a real person. By that logic any person or thing depicted in any book exists of exited. The logic is your's not mine. 

By my case I have clearly shown that the bible in no way proves the existence or divinity of the man Jesus. It is the same as any other text. It must have more than just itself to support it. You're logic and refutations do not prove more than that the bible exists and that the bible has a character called Jesus who is divine in it.

If you would like me to use a different style of debating next time a refute your points please request it and I will see what I can do. Weather I present my points in an informal rant style or contention refutation style, the fact still remains. The bible is a book just like every other. It proves nothing more than its own existence, and if put in the hands of the wrong people can be used to take over an entire society. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Contention 1: For a text to be considered fact it must be written by a relatively unbiased source.

False. If you're going to go down that route, you eliminate all history. All history is biased in some way or other. The key questions to ask are, in what way is it biased, and what does this do to the text.

Contention 2: The bible is clearly  a biased source.

Perhaps, but in what way? Certainly in no meaningfully negative way. Looking at just the Gospels, we have four eye witness accounts which do not have, in themselves, any significant interest in making the story true. They are just reporting what they are seeing. In fact, the fact of their telling the story made their lives far worse, not better. Unless you can demonstrate to me how the "bias" of the gospel authors worked, I'm not seeing how it can be seen as a negative.

Contention 3: The amount of people who believe that a text is fact does not make that text fact and therefor simple because the bible has a devout following does not make it truth.

I've already agreed to this several times. The fact you are still bringing it up makes me think your not listening.

In fact even the accounts that are in the modern day bible were not written till 100 years after his death by some accounts.

False. We know for a fact that the gospels could not have been written more than, at the very very most, twenty years after Jesus's death/resurection. The reason? Well we know that Paul was writing his letters to the churches in the mediterainan basin by 50AD. Therefore, the gospels had to have existed prior to then, or word would not have spread, and Pauls letters do not make sense. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians Paul refers to the resurection, as it is mentioned in the Gospels as a "Tradition". Since the Greek word he used meant something very old, and he was using it in 50 AD, we can conclude that the idea of the resurection, as mentioned in the gospels, was old by 50AD. Given that Jesus died in 30AD, it is most likly that the Gospels were written very close to the time, given that Paul references them as being old only 20 years later.

These accounts were all written by those who followed him. Even the historian Josephus who wrote what is considered the complete history of the Jewish empire to the time of the roman conquest did not put Jesus in his manuscript. It was added in later by the Romans when they made Christianity their state religion.

False. Although there have been some addtions, we know that Josephus did talk about Jesus. There were emblishements and additions, but we know he talked about him somewhat. This is because we have arabic translations of his work which pre-date the Roman altered records. Here are the Roman records with the probable additions highlighted

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.[On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

And here is the Arabic translated edition.

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Even the famous census taken in the beginning of the bible does not show him in it.

Actually, point 1, this is disputed. But point 2, it is expected he wouldn't be in the census. He wasn't born. After he was born, he was taken away to be hidden. Had he been made know, he would have been killed. 

As for Jesus he is only found in the gospels and doctored records.

You have yet to prove why the gospels are biased. If you say "its because they were Christians" you have to think of it logically. Imagine the scenerio. Lets say (hypothetically) that everything in the Bible did happen, and that there were people who saw it, and as a result believed in Jesus and thus wanted what had happened to be more widely know. Do you not see the problem with saying "well you're biased" about their testemony. Of course they would believe it. They saw it. You'll have to prove they are actually biased, and did not simply write it because that IS what they saw.

Secondly, there are other records that make mention of Jesus. Pilny the Younger, Tacticus, others who describe events in the gospels etc.

Though the religion of Christianity has a large following that does not make the texts true.

I'm getting rather tired of you refuting an argument I havn't made. Please provide an example of me making this argument, and I'll happily listen to you.

Refutation 1: You state that the nature of the texts is different therefor making them incomparable. Simply because one writer uses the Epic Poem style and another used the Biographical style does not mean that they are incompatible. It is like saying that is a movie is based on a book or a play the we cannot compare the movie to the book or play because they use a different style. Harry Potter= Harry Potter weather you read it or watch it.

They are not compatable because they are not the same style, they are not the same context, they are not even in the same languge, were not considered the same sort of thing by the people who read them (we know this because of other historical evidence). No one would seriously claim that, for instance, the stories of Zeus etc were eye witness accounts, because it was all in the relam of the Gods, and there were no mortals there to see the events.

Refutation 2: I was not using my own logic, I was simply applying the logic you used. You stated that because Jesus is a character in the Bible and has divinity in that book then therefore he must be a real person. By that logic any person or thing depicted in any book exists of exited. The logic is your's not mine.

No. You said that by believing in Jesus I was required to believe in harry potter. I pointed out that Jesus is known to have historical evidence surrounding him. If you accept the possibility of the style of evidence around Jesus being fictional, you must also accept the possibility of all the evidence around Caesar being fictitious. The fact that there may be more/less evidence for Caesar isn't relevant. There are (contrary to your assertions) multiple records of Jesus's existence, both in positive and neutral lights.

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

Your example of the letters are irrelevant because they are not the gospels, they do not tell a story of Jesus' life they are simply the writings of a man trying to keep control of the community he has created.

The quote from Josephus you pointed out is in an article in Times and they clearly state that that quote is entirely added. Your point only furthers my case.

 

As i have shown Jesus has no historical evidence. As I have said the people who wrote the gospels were not mere historians writing down what they saw and heard. They are leaders of communities vying for power over even more communities. They wrote these texts to attempt to validate the beliefs of those they had already tricked. They are biased in the most extreme sense. It is like Adolf Hitler writing about the success of Adolf Hitler. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Your example of the letters are irrelevant because they are not the gospels, they do not tell a story of Jesus' life they are simply the writings of a man trying to keep control of the community he has created.

Erm... no. Paul did not create any community like that. The churches were founded by others. The reason the letters are relevant, had you actually read what I said, was that he was referencing the gospels, and talking about the resurrection as a tradition. Given that, clearly the gospels must have existed by then.

The quote from Josephus you pointed out is in an article in Times and they clearly state that that quote is entirely added. Your point only furthers my case.

If that's true, prove it. I did not get it from a Times article. The Arabic version is considered more reliable, yet it still references the resuerction

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/jesusand.htm

What is immediately obvious to us here is that the blatantly Christian passages are *not* in this Arabic version. Passages such as "if indeed one ought to call him a man", and "He was the Christ" are missing. The third and final passage, "he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive" is introduced by the words "They reported that..." Charlesworth strikes at the heart of the controversy with his observation that no Jew would say that someone "was *perhaps* the Messiah?" We understand that the Arabic is from a Syriac copy, via a Greek copy which was translated by Christians, but each successive translation drops some of the pejorative comments. The Greek has surely been altered which automatically alters any other translation whether to Slavonic, or Arabic. But Josephus ***did refer to Jesus***. (my emphasis) The significance, apart from the fat that Josephus could have admired the wise sayings of Jesus, and his arguing against the zealous revolutionaries (Charlesworth does not accept S.G.F. Brandon's idea of Jesus being involved in Roman insurrection), "The significance of the Arabic recension lies partly in the corroboration of the gospel account. Jesus was wiseand righteous, attracted Jewish and Gentile followers, and was crucified by Pilate's orders; moreover, the Palestinian Jesus movement continued after his death."18 No testimony is as important as that of Josephus concerning an historical person named Jesus, a miracle worker, wise man, gatherer of Jews and Gentiles, as well as disturber and rebellious person (according to the way a first-century Jew would have seen him), of whom some today still say didn't exist in history. This Arabic recension goes a long way in establishing an actual historica aspect to our search for this historic person, long after most thought the final verdict was in.

As I have said the people who wrote the gospels were not mere historians writing down what they saw and heard. They are leaders of communities vying for power over even more communities.

False. The disciples did NOT found communities. They were on the run most of the time. They didn't have that chance. They were not vying for power (not since Jesus criticised them for doing so). All of the gospel leaders were hunted down and killed, not for what they belived, but for what they saw. The Romans thought that by execuiting the authors, they removed the legitimacy. Hence they also gave them the option of renouncing, and thereby the Romans would have used them to mop up the Early Church. As it was, they did'nt and they were killed.

They are biased in the most extreme sense. It is like Adolf Hitler writing about the success of Adolf Hitler.

How? They have no interest in supporting Jesus, given how much it cost them.

[Lori S.]

No, they don't prove the existence of Jesus, but most serious historians believe that there was a historical Jesus who was a wandering Jewish preacher and reformer and who was crucified by the Romans.

There is no less proof for the existence of the historical Jesus than there is for most historical figures we accept existed thousands of years ago, and significantly more than for many historical figures.

I'm not aware of any mainstream historian, whether atheist, Christian, agnostic, or other, who doesn't accept that Jesus as a historical person existed.  That doesn't mean accepting the supernatural elements of the story, but simply accepting that there is a real person around whom those stories developed, whether they were true or not.  The only historians I'm aware of who claim Jesus was nothing more than a fictional character are a handful of New Atheist types who are more interested in furthering their agenda than in serious scholarship.  You would never find most mainstream, secular, non-Christian historians claiming that there was no historical Jesus and that it was all one big hoax.  They accept that there was a historical person around whom the religious myths developed, whatever their take on the value and/or veracity of those religious myths.

[Fake Crowley]

I'll grant you that, back a few thousand years ago, there might have been  a Jewish scholar named Joshua, Yeshua, Jesus, whatever you want to call him. Jewish scholars were probably not all that rare, and Jewish people named Joshua probably were fairly common. So saying that there wasn't a non-divine Jesus back then is roughly equivalent to saying that there wasn't an English guy named Steven a hundred years ago. Technically false, but irrelevant.

 

Unless you mean people agree that he was historical, but not about his divinity. In which case, I must ask what made him so historical. I guess he preached a bit--which, y'know, hasn't happened before or since--but that's not enough to make a guy famous.

 

In other words, if he's not divine, I don't care about historical records--he'd just be some random Jewish wood-worker who part-timed as a teacher.