A Prayer Of Salvation (2 Viewers)

[Ministry of Pain]

Quick video on Did Moses Exist?

What I found most interesting was the walkthrough of what scholars/historians use to determine historicity.

Bravo!
-When they get to that 2 Million people migrated out of Egypt one afternoon and there is no record of it


Does that mean he really didn't exist? Of course not but it shoots holes in these ridiculous fairy tales that have been spun over time and unfortunately still are a good method to control large swaths of people around the World

All that said, I'm proud of @Paddington and @Joe Bryant for allowing religious discussion to continue.
I never said I have no spirituality, just difficult to believe in the leap of faith so many others profess to
Fascinating the difference in day to day thoughts for those who believe in Christ as their Lord and Savior and those who either have doubts/questions or are simply non-believers

In a.lot of ways I'm jealous of Paddington and Joe and many others who don't have that internal tug of war, it's gotta feel like freedom from this world

 

[BassNBrew]

This doesn't sound right. A theist can only "know" god exists via proof of that existence, just as an atheist can only "know" god doesn't exist via proof of non-existence.

There isn’t really a proof that God doesn’t exist, nor do I think there could be. To do that, you would have to show that the existence of God is metaphysically impossible, which I’m guessing even the staunchest atheist would concede they cannot do. Indeed, that’s why philosophical atheism has only been in the business of refuting existing theistic proofs.

Side note: A lot of my atheist friends are hoping that a theoretical physicist will provide a unified scientific theory that describes reality without reference to God. However, that still wouldn’t prove God’s non-existence.

To date, no theists have conclusively proven god's existence, thus all theists should be agnostic about their belief.

Aristotelians/ Thomists believe, for example, that Aristotle’s proof from motion/ change conclusively shows that God exists. While atheists may claim that they’ve poked holes in this proof, the Aristotelians/ Thomists think that they have successfully countered. So, in their mind, the proof still stands. The same is true of various other proofs.

Unless, for example, one uses an argument such as "god spoke to me, therefore god exists" as proof, in which case, atheists should be able to use the same unconvincing, non-evidentiary level of proof.

Fair or not, someone like Paddington can always come forward and say that he knows God exists via divine revelation. So, it’s up to the atheist to refute him, which is what folks have been trying to do in this thread. Of course, an atheist cannot fall back on something like revelation because a thing that doesn’t exist will never be able to reveal something to you. That’s logically impossible.

I'll refute him. It makes zero sense that God is spending time talking with Paddington while over a million folks have died in Russia/Ukraine.

For the guy taking prayer requests, my request is that God sets aside all the other requests and gets to work on ending the losses in Ukraine.

 

[dkp993]

when Zow (maybe the smartest poster in this thread)

I’m definitely agnostic on this.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm guessing that for you that this is old news.

Yes. I just wasn't sure if you were saying certain parts didn't exist at the time of Jesus or if it just wasn't all put together into one "thing" yet. I assumed the latter. No idea what Paddington pictures when he says Jesus believed the "OT", but I think his main point is usually just to say that Jesus valued their scriptures (regardless of what was and wasn't included under that label at that time).

Yep! Did the historical Jesus reinterpret as the Christians did such that it was mostly prophesy pointing to himself? Or was his interpretation in line with how it was always interpreted by Jews?

(My answer is neither. He interpreted through the apocalyptic lens of his day which emphasized some parts and de-emphasized others. I don't think that he ever checklist much of the prophesy that his existence would "fulfill" mostly because of the "no time for that" message he had and that continued in the early years. The "Jesus Everything was in support of the message that Daniel's "Son of Man" was coming soon, very soon to usher in the Kingdom of God. So, prepare now by living as if it was already here. That was the filter that I believe that Jesus read scripture.)

 

[dgreen]

Quick video on Did Moses Exist?

What I found most interesting was the walkthrough of what scholars/historians use to determine historicity.

Bravo!
-When they get to that 2 Million people migrated out of Egypt one afternoon and there is no record of it


Does that mean he really didn't exist? Of course not but it shoots holes in these ridiculous fairy tales that have been spun over time and unfortunately still are a good method to control large swaths of people around the World

The two million comes from "600,000 men" and then adding in assumed women and children. The text says "shesh meah eleph". "Shesh" is definitely "six". "Meah" is definitely "hundred". But, "eleph" has options. It can mean "thousand" or " clan" or "military units" or even "cattle". It clearly doesn't mean "cattle" because that would make no sense in the context. Taking the English translation of "thousand" and then estimating that equates to two million total people is more of a reflection on us and our potential ridiculousness and in no way makes it a "ridiculous fairy tale". I think it's pretty likely the author of the story never intended his reader to picture two million people leaving Egypt and wandering across the desert. "Clan" or "military unit" makes much more sense. Or, it's also possible it is "thousand" but it should be read as either symbolic or hyperbolic, or both.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Aren’t we just talking about personal identifiers here: gnostic v agnostic? That is, a gnostic claims they know God exists, whereas an agnostic says they’re not sure.

No!

I’d assume that all intellectually honest atheists would concede they’re in the agnostic atheist quadrant. I might be wrong, but I don’t think there is a proof that God doesn’t exist, nor could there be, really. At best, atheists can try to poke holes in the proofs that God does exist.

Shouldn't all believers be agnostic theist for the exact same reason?

No, I am talking about when one can be "intellectually honest" saying that they know. And your two very differing standards based on who is saying it.

Note: I feel like you’re trying to push me to prove too much, well beyond what I was originally talking about. Like, I suspect this is unfortunately turning into something where you’re gonna ask me to prove God’s existence to justify my gnosticism. Otherwise, I must conclude there’s no such thing as a gnostic theist.

Proving God exists would support you "knowing", but that isn't the point. The point is that if you are claiming that you can know based on belief at the same time others cannot, then you are exerting a double standard. A disconnect. Or a blind spot.

But you're correct this is getting nowhere.

 

[Psychopav]

I'm guessing that for you that this is old news.

Yes. I just wasn't sure if you were saying certain parts didn't exist at the time of Jesus or if it just wasn't all put together into one "thing" yet. I assumed the latter. No idea what Paddington pictures when he says Jesus believed the "OT", but I think his main point is usually just to say that Jesus valued their scriptures (regardless of what was and wasn't included under that label at that time).

Yep! Did the historical Jesus reinterpret as the Christians did such that it was mostly prophesy pointing to himself? Or was his interpretation in line with how it was always interpreted by Jews?

(My answer is neither. He interpreted through the apocalyptic lens of his day which emphasized some parts and de-emphasized others. I don't think that he ever checklist much of the prophesy that his existence would "fulfill" mostly because of the "no time for that" message he had and that continued in the early years. The "Jesus Everything was in support of the message that Daniel's "Son of Man" was coming soon, very soon to usher in the Kingdom of God. So, prepare now by living as if it was already here. That was the filter that I believe that Jesus read scripture.)

I think the road to Emmaus and the gospel of Luke may disagree with you here.

 

[bolzano]

This line of thinking makes no sense to me, maybe I’m misunderstanding. So I’ll try an analogy…..
If I claim that we are living in a simulation and my evidence for such is my belief in it (ie faith) and some written anecdotal evidence, you’re saying the burden of proof lays with the people who don’t believe what I’m saying to be true?

Through divine revelation, I learned there is a herd of magic ponies that live in the center of the sun. Are you saying it's on you to disprove that?

The conversation is largely around how his experience is not proof of Gods existence to the rest of us, it anecdotal to him.

The reason why I jumped into this thread was because I wanted to explore the distinction between gnosticism and agnosticism. So, everything I posted should be understood from that context.

A person could say to have seen a unicorn or a spaghetti monster, and thus claim they have direct knowledge of their existence. Therefore, that person would be a gnostic when it comes to the existence of those beings. Whether they have the pics to prove it (or not) doesn’t really change that fact.

I want to empathize this: I’m not saying that non-believers of unicorns and spaghetti monsters need to take this person’s claims seriously. You don’t necessarily need to refute them to show that those things don’t exist. But, you would need to do that if you were trying to prove to that particular believer that they don’t have direct knowledge after all, and hence they’re not really a gnostic.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

In a.lot of ways I'm jealous of Paddington and Joe and many others who don't have that internal tug of war, it's gotta feel like freedom from this world

I sort of feel this way too. I'm totally at peace with being a skeptic and there being just a series of random chance leading to everything we see, but i can see how faith is a comfort.

I lost one of my oldest friends unexpectedly last week and moments like this i see how faith can help lessen the blow and give comfort. The cessation of suffering from another belief system is good enough for me to know that he's found peace, but he like me was raised Catholic and i see how important faith is to his family to try and make sense of tragedy. I'm thankful they can lean on that and it's times like this I recognize the value religion can bring.

 

[Psychopav]

In a.lot of ways I'm jealous of Paddington and Joe and many others who don't have that internal tug of war, it's gotta feel like freedom from this world

I sort of feel this way too. I'm totally at peace with being a skeptic and there being just a series of random chance leading to everything we see.

I lost one of my oldest friends unexpectedly last week and moments like this i see how faith can help lessen the blow and give comfort. The cessation of suffering from another belief system is good enough for me to know that he's found peace, but he like me was raised Catholic and i see how important faith is to his family to try and make sense of tragedy. I'm thankful they can lean on that and it's times like this I recognize the value religion can bring.

I'm so sorry for your loss. May your friend rest in peace and may your spirit be comforted.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm guessing that for you that this is old news.

Yes. I just wasn't sure if you were saying certain parts didn't exist at the time of Jesus or if it just wasn't all put together into one "thing" yet. I assumed the latter. No idea what Paddington pictures when he says Jesus believed the "OT", but I think his main point is usually just to say that Jesus valued their scriptures (regardless of what was and wasn't included under that label at that time).

Yep! Did the historical Jesus reinterpret as the Christians did such that it was mostly prophesy pointing to himself? Or was his interpretation in line with how it was always interpreted by Jews?

(My answer is neither. He interpreted through the apocalyptic lens of his day which emphasized some parts and de-emphasized others. I don't think that he ever checklist much of the prophesy that his existence would "fulfill" mostly because of the "no time for that" message he had and that continued in the early years. The "Jesus Everything was in support of the message that Daniel's "Son of Man" was coming soon, very soon to usher in the Kingdom of God. So, prepare now by living as if it was already here. That was the filter that I believe that Jesus read scripture.)

I think the road to Emmaus and the gospel of Luke may disagree with you here.

The road to Emmaus? Okay, I didn't put a disclaimer here to narrow my focus, so you got me here. The resurrected Jesus did seem to be in less of a hurry. It really took 40 days and many convincing proofs to convince those that were his closest followers who he was? And I'm considered the doubter?

 

[Psychopav]

I'm guessing that for you that this is old news.

Yes. I just wasn't sure if you were saying certain parts didn't exist at the time of Jesus or if it just wasn't all put together into one "thing" yet. I assumed the latter. No idea what Paddington pictures when he says Jesus believed the "OT", but I think his main point is usually just to say that Jesus valued their scriptures (regardless of what was and wasn't included under that label at that time).

Yep! Did the historical Jesus reinterpret as the Christians did such that it was mostly prophesy pointing to himself? Or was his interpretation in line with how it was always interpreted by Jews?

(My answer is neither. He interpreted through the apocalyptic lens of his day which emphasized some parts and de-emphasized others. I don't think that he ever checklist much of the prophesy that his existence would "fulfill" mostly because of the "no time for that" message he had and that continued in the early years. The "Jesus Everything was in support of the message that Daniel's "Son of Man" was coming soon, very soon to usher in the Kingdom of God. So, prepare now by living as if it was already here. That was the filter that I believe that Jesus read scripture.)

I think the road to Emmaus and the gospel of Luke may disagree with you here.

The road to Emmaus? Okay, I didn't put a disclaimer here to narrow my focus, so you got me here. The resurrected Jesus did seem to be in less of a hurry. It really took 40 days and many convincing proofs to convince those that were his closest followers who he was? And I'm considered the doubter?

No, on the contrary. The road to Emmaus makes it clear that his followers knew who he was as soon as he blessed the bread. Likewise, his apostles knew who he was when he appeared to them in the upper room. He spent 40 days appearing to groups of believers, not skeptics trying to convince them who he was. Where did you pick that idea up?

 

[dkp993]

But, you would need to do that if you were trying to prove to that particular believer that they don’t have direct knowledge after all, and hence they’re not really a gnostic.

Sure, I get it. I’m just not sure most here are really trying to do that.

Like @Bottomfeeder Sports implied, I guess I’m getting hung up on your “intellectually honest” statement and the standards by which you are applying that.

 

[dkp993]

In a.lot of ways I'm jealous of Paddington and Joe and many others who don't have that internal tug of war, it's gotta feel like freedom from this world

I sort of feel this way too. I'm totally at peace with being a skeptic and there being just a series of random chance leading to everything we see, but i can see how faith is a comfort.

I lost one of my oldest friends unexpectedly last week and moments like this i see how faith can help lessen the blow and give comfort. The cessation of suffering from another belief system is good enough for me to know that he's found peace, but he like me was raised Catholic and i see how important faith is to his family to try and make sense of tragedy. I'm thankful they can lean on that and it's times like this I recognize the value religion can bring.

I said it in previous iterations of this thread, I actually understand the Paddingtons (ie 100% literalists) more than I do the overwhelming majority of “believers”. While I don’t agree, I understand the logic of those that believe the bible as being the literal word of God. The “middle ground” people that pick and choose (for lack of a better word) what is real and what is parable, what needs to be interpreted vs what doesn’t, etc etc, I just can’t get there with. Too many holes in that version to poke.

Sorry to hear about your friend. That’s tough for sure.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The road to Emmaus? Okay, I didn't put a disclaimer here to narrow my focus, so you got me here. The resurrected Jesus did seem to be in less of a hurry. It really took 40 days and many convincing proofs to convince those that were his closest followers who he was? And I'm considered the doubter?

No, on the contrary. The road to Emmaus makes it clear that his followers knew who he was as soon as he blessed the bread. Likewise, his apostles knew who he was when he appeared to them in the upper room. He spent 40 days appearing to groups of believers, not skeptics trying to convince them who he was. Where did you pick that idea up?

Acts 1:3 (technically starting with 1:2 to understand who "them" is.)

after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

ETA: And depending on how you want to interpret the gospels, these chosen apostles had just spent every day for a few months to three or so years with Jesus and they didn't recognize him until after many convincing proofs? Why did it take more than the first? And who are these other believers in the first 6 weeks?

 

[Zow]

You have this completely backwards. The one arguing something exists has the burden of proving it. Not the other way around because of the "proving a negative".

In fact, I think we’re saying the same thing, which was implied in one of my OG posts when I said atheism is a negative philosophy. Yes, the atheist can put the burden of proof on the theist. However, the atheist still can’t prove that God’s existence is metaphysically impossible, which, IMO, would be required for them to conclusively close the door on God.

You keep saying a believer can claim that they know that the invisible flying spaghetti monster is present in the room and it is up to non-believers to prove that it isn't. (ETA: When I wrote this I wasn't piling on.)

No, we are not saying the same thing. You are imposing a higher standard on what is required for a non-believer being "intellectually honest" to claim to "know" than you are on a believer. The standard of knowing should be the same, to actually know. Not to believe, no matter how strongly. If believing strongly is enough for a believer, then it is not enough for a non-believer. That is the disconnect! If there are reasons for the standards to be different, you haven't really made that case.

Aren’t we just talking about personal identifiers here: gnostic v agnostic? That is, a gnostic claims they know God exists, whereas an agnostic says they’re not sure.

And yes, a lot of theists would say they fall in the gnostic camp, regardless of whether you agree with their reasons or not. Indeed, they claim to have knowledge that God exists. As for the atheists, I don’t know anyone who really claims to have direct knowledge that God doesn’t exist. IMO, that seems impossible and perhaps it has to do with the “proving the negative” issue. That’s all I was saying.

What got me interested in this gnostic v agnostic distinction was when Zow (maybe the smartest poster in this thread) suggested that for all intents and purposes an atheist is an agnostic atheist. So, I was wondering whether a theist could consider themselves a gnostic theist. Based on the definitions, I think they can. You seem to disagree though.

Note: I feel like you’re trying to push me to prove too much, well beyond what I was originally talking about. Like, I suspect this is unfortunately turning into something where you’re gonna ask me to prove God’s existence to justify my gnosticism. Otherwise, I must conclude there’s no such thing as a gnostic theist.

@Joe Bryant can we get signatures back?

 

[bolzano]

No, I am talking about when one can be "intellectually honest" saying that they know. And your two very differing standards based on who is saying it.

When I said that an “intellectually honest” atheist would probably have to identify with agnosticism, I was following another poster’s idea, namely, that there’s not really a difference between atheism and agnostic atheism. The reason for that comment didn’t get fleshed out, but I’m guessing it’s because claiming that you’re a gnostic atheist is an extraordinarily strong statement. While theists can have different notions of God and various ways at arriving at his existence, a true gnostic atheist is saying that they’re all false. God does not/ cannot exist. Well, good luck trying to produce a direct proof towards that end.

Regarding the “proving the negative” issue, I think that’s only a problem if you assume the starting point is gnostic atheism. So, if you’re presented with a proof of God’s existence and you refute it, then you move back into the gnostic atheist camp.

However, that’s not how it works in practice. For example, most of my atheist friends’ starting position is that they have no knowledge of God, one way or the other. So, uncertainty is baked into the cake and they assume God doesn’t exist until proven to the contrary. But they don’t really know for sure. Therefore, they are agnostic even if they don’t understand it. Then, their degrees of belief move along the agnosticism/ skepticism spectrum as they experience life and gather evidence.

My point is that I would assume for them to move into the full-on gnostic atheist camp they would need a formal direct proof or concrete evidence that God doesn’t exist. Otherwise, I don’t know how you move from agnosticism to stating that you know with certainty that something like atheism is true.

Proving God exists would support you "knowing", but that isn't the point. The point is that if you are claiming that you can know based on belief at the same time others cannot, then you are exerting a double standard. A disconnect. Or a blind spot.

There are a lot of folks who think that God’s existence has been proven. And yes, with rigor. Indeed, this is exactly what Thomas Aquinas thought and ditto with other great philosophers and theologians. These people claim that they have a direct proof (or set of proofs) that move them into the fully gnostic theism category. Moreover, there are others who claim divine revelation for one reason or another.

As for what it means to truly know something vs just believing in it, I feel like you’re moving the goalposts to an argument over epistemology/ philosophy of mind. That, or you’re trying to tell me to prove that God exists or admit that I’m an agnostic theist. Or worse, you’re using it as a way of dismissing philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas out of hand.

 

[Paddington]

I don't think some religious folks understand how implicitly offensive their calling to "save" the rest of us are. Many of us have a set of values and beliefs that we feel comfortable with and confident in. When those values or beliefs are different than that of the religious person, we're told we're lost or missing something in our lives. Implicit in that is that our beliefs are wrong and should change.

Let's flip Paddington's post on its head to illustrate my point. Imagine if I routinely started a thread titled "A Return to Reality". In it I describe how religious people's sense of truth has been clouded by their indoctrination in a flawed, fictional belief system. I then lay out steps for them to emerge from their deception and see things for how they truly are, the result of which will be a much better understanding of our existence and appreciation for our life here on earth.

Would that land on religious people as attempting to have a civil discussion? My guess is it would feel more as an attack on their beliefs.

I don't find Paddington to be so much offensive but, instead, incredibly arrogant to think that one human has all the answers to very difficult questions and others don't.

Of course, the counterpoint to mine is that if a person like Paddington truly believes that God is that wretched that God would send us to eternal damnation simply for a human choosing in good faith not to follow God's narrow rules, then it could be perceived as a kind thing whereby he is trying to help others out to avoid to wrath of a certainly vengeful, spiteful God.

It's not about me having all of the answers, it's about the Word of God having all of the answers. I am not trying to sound arrogant, I am trying to express to people here what the Bible says and many don't like it. What if Jesus came here and said these things? Would you believe Him? Jesus proclaimed the Bible, (The OT at that time) and expected them to believe.

The “Jewish Bible” was still a hundred years from being a thing during the time of Jesus. However, I don’t think a rational argument can be made that Jesus didn’t accept the scripture of his day which was more or less the same - more towards more.

I assume that if Jesus was here today most of us would see and hear as well as, well everyone Mark. That it’s only the demons and the Centurion that get it while the true believers are running and hiding as they deny everything.

The Old Testament was mostly settled in Christ's day. He quoted from it as authoritative and expected the people to believe it. Jesus told His disciples that He would die and rise again, but the Bible says that they didn't understand what He was telling them. It also says thay God hid it from them. Only Peter denied Christ and Judas betrayed Him.

The council of Nicea wasn't to puck the books of the Canon, it was actually to confirm the books that were already believed to be inspired of God.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The Old Testament was mostly settled in Christ's day. He quoted from it as authoritative and expected the people to believe it

I assume you know this is coming. Did Jesus believe/dictate Ecclesiastes? If so, how did he interpret it? Seems to suggest very strongly that this short existence is both meaningless and all there is. Death is final. So, all one can really do is "eat, drink, and be merry". Is that wrong? Also, in context of other conversations going on it seems to very strongly suggests that kinds of knowledge or wisdom as presented in the other wisdom books is beyond humanity grasp. Is that wrong? I already searched Les' site. Almost nothing. Almost!

This seems that the author of Ecclesiastes is addressing some of the very same questions that bring rise of apocalyptic thought, but with a very different conclusion. Is this wrong?

 

[RCon]

No, I am talking about when one can be "intellectually honest" saying that they know. And your two very differing standards based on who is saying it.

When I said that an “intellectually honest” atheist would probably have to identify with agnosticism, I was following another poster’s idea, namely, that there’s not really a difference between atheism and agnostic atheism. The reason for that comment didn’t get fleshed out, but I’m guessing it’s because claiming that you’re a gnostic atheist is an extraordinarily strong statement. While theists can have different notions of God and various ways at arriving at his existence, a true gnostic atheist is saying that they’re all false. God does not/ cannot exist. Well, good luck trying to produce a direct proof towards that end.

Regarding the “proving the negative” issue, I think that’s only a problem if you assume the starting point is gnostic atheism. So, if you’re presented with a proof of God’s existence and you refute it, then you move back into the gnostic atheist camp.

However, that’s not how it works in practice. For example, most of my atheist friends’ starting position is that they have no knowledge of God, one way or the other. So, uncertainty is baked into the cake and they assume God doesn’t exist until proven to the contrary. But they don’t really know for sure. Therefore, they are agnostic even if they don’t understand it. Then, their degrees of belief move along the agnosticism/ skepticism spectrum as they experience life and gather evidence.

My point is that I would assume for them to move into the full-on gnostic atheist camp they would need a formal direct proof or concrete evidence that God doesn’t exist. Otherwise, I don’t know how you move from agnosticism to stating that you know with certainty that something like atheism is true.

Proving God exists would support you "knowing", but that isn't the point. The point is that if you are claiming that you can know based on belief at the same time others cannot, then you are exerting a double standard. A disconnect. Or a blind spot.

There are a lot of folks who think that God’s existence has been proven. And yes, with rigor. Indeed, this is exactly what Thomas Aquinas thought and ditto with other great philosophers and theologians. These people claim that they have a direct proof (or set of proofs) that move them into the fully gnostic theism category. Moreover, there are others who claim divine revelation for one reason or another.

As for what it means to truly know something vs just believing in it, I feel like you’re moving the goalposts to an argument over epistemology/ philosophy of mind. That, or you’re trying to tell me to prove that God exists or admit that I’m an agnostic theist. Or worse, you’re using it as a way of dismissing philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas out of hand.

The way I understand it, you're suggesting that gnostic theism is possible via divine revelation, or to put it more simply, "just believing really hard". I'm good with that. In other words, a person can truly believe they know for a fact that god exists, which would then make them a gnostic theist.

The double standard arrives when we don't allow that same system of belief for gnostic atheists. Why can't someone simply truly believe they know for a fact that god doesn't exist? And wouldn't that make the person a gnostic atheist? Obviously, it's fairly trivial to create logical conundrums to "prove" the non-existence of god that are easily the equal of any intellectual proof of existence (e.g. if god created everything then what created god / if god simply existed, then god didn't actually create everything. if god is all powerful and all good, then how can evil/suffering exist? etc.).

You seem to be calling the gnostic atheist intellectually dishonest without doing the same for the gnostic theist.

 

[Psychopav]

No, I am talking about when one can be "intellectually honest" saying that they know. And your two very differing standards based on who is saying it.

When I said that an “intellectually honest” atheist would probably have to identify with agnosticism, I was following another poster’s idea, namely, that there’s not really a difference between atheism and agnostic atheism. The reason for that comment didn’t get fleshed out, but I’m guessing it’s because claiming that you’re a gnostic atheist is an extraordinarily strong statement. While theists can have different notions of God and various ways at arriving at his existence, a true gnostic atheist is saying that they’re all false. God does not/ cannot exist. Well, good luck trying to produce a direct proof towards that end.

Regarding the “proving the negative” issue, I think that’s only a problem if you assume the starting point is gnostic atheism. So, if you’re presented with a proof of God’s existence and you refute it, then you move back into the gnostic atheist camp.

However, that’s not how it works in practice. For example, most of my atheist friends’ starting position is that they have no knowledge of God, one way or the other. So, uncertainty is baked into the cake and they assume God doesn’t exist until proven to the contrary. But they don’t really know for sure. Therefore, they are agnostic even if they don’t understand it. Then, their degrees of belief move along the agnosticism/ skepticism spectrum as they experience life and gather evidence.

My point is that I would assume for them to move into the full-on gnostic atheist camp they would need a formal direct proof or concrete evidence that God doesn’t exist. Otherwise, I don’t know how you move from agnosticism to stating that you know with certainty that something like atheism is true.

Proving God exists would support you "knowing", but that isn't the point. The point is that if you are claiming that you can know based on belief at the same time others cannot, then you are exerting a double standard. A disconnect. Or a blind spot.

There are a lot of folks who think that God’s existence has been proven. And yes, with rigor. Indeed, this is exactly what Thomas Aquinas thought and ditto with other great philosophers and theologians. These people claim that they have a direct proof (or set of proofs) that move them into the fully gnostic theism category. Moreover, there are others who claim divine revelation for one reason or another.

As for what it means to truly know something vs just believing in it, I feel like you’re moving the goalposts to an argument over epistemology/ philosophy of mind. That, or you’re trying to tell me to prove that God exists or admit that I’m an agnostic theist. Or worse, you’re using it as a way of dismissing philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas out of hand.

The way I understand it, you're suggesting that gnostic theism is possible via divine revelation, or to put it more simply, "just believing really hard". I'm good with that. In other words, a person can truly believe they know for a fact that god exists, which would then make them a gnostic theist.

The double standard arrives when we don't allow that same system of belief for gnostic atheists. Why can't someone simply truly believe they know for a fact that god doesn't exist? And wouldn't that make the person a gnostic atheist? Obviously, it's fairly trivial to create logical conundrums to "prove" the non-existence of god that are easily the equal of any intellectual proof of existence (e.g. if god created everything then what created god / if god simply existed, then god didn't actually create everything. if god is all powerful and all good, then how can evil/suffering exist? etc.).

You seem to be calling the gnostic atheist intellectually dishonest without doing the same for the gnostic theist.

Unless I'm mistaken, that's not at all what he's saying; rather, he's saying that God can be proven rationally.

I have never found that compelling but I know I'm in the minority of Catholics that care about such things. It may interest you to know that the Church does not require belief in the provability of the existence of God, just belief in Him.

 

[bolzano]

The way I understand it, you're suggesting that gnostic theism is possible via divine revelation, or to put it more simply, "just believing really hard". I'm good with that. In other words, a person can truly believe they know for a fact that god exists, which would then make them a gnostic theist.

By knowing God exists via divine revelation, I mean people who have direct knowledge of God because they experienced something miraculous (e.g., Peter, John, and James at the transfiguration, Mary Magdalene and the risen Jesus).

 

[RCon]

The way I understand it, you're suggesting that gnostic theism is possible via divine revelation, or to put it more simply, "just believing really hard". I'm good with that. In other words, a person can truly believe they know for a fact that god exists, which would then make them a gnostic theist.

By knowing God exists via divine revelation, I mean people who have direct knowledge of God because they experienced something miraculous (e.g., Peter, John, and James at the transfiguration, Mary Magdalene and the risen Jesus).

This is off topic from gnostic/agnostic, but does the above mean you're saying no living person has experienced a "divine revelation"?

Back to gnostic/agnostic, it seems to me you are saying one of the two following things:

1. The existence of god can be proven rationally. If so, go ahead, I'm all ears.
-or-
2. If one believes that the existence of god has been proven rationally, then it's appropriate to call that person a gnostic theist. If so, then why wouldn't that same courtesy be extended to one who believes the non-existence of god has been proven rationally?

 

[bolzano]

The double standard arrives when we don't allow that same system of belief for gnostic atheists. Why can't someone simply truly believe they know for a fact that god doesn't exist? And wouldn't that make the person a gnostic atheist? Obviously, it's fairly trivial to create logical conundrums to "prove" the non-existence of god that are easily the equal of any intellectual proof of existence (e.g. if god created everything then what created god / if god simply existed, then god didn't actually create everything. if god is all powerful and all good, then how can evil/suffering exist? etc.).

Please see paragraph one of the post you quoted. When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist. See, there are many definitions of God. The atheist needs to show that God doesn’t/ can’t exist, no matter the dentition. However, the theist only needs to show that, given his conception of God, God exists.

Why this is problematic to the atheist is highlighted by the common retorts to theism that you listed. While I can easily counter them, you may not like my arguments and remain unconvinced. So, you may claim that you still “know” that God doesn’t exist. However, that’s only my conception of God. Indeed, not all definitions of God say that he’s omnipotent, all good, or even that he created everything. Moreover, it’s possible that God could reveal himself, and it turns out that he doesn’t fit any previously known definition. So, how can the “intellectually honest” atheist claim to know that God doesn’t exist?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There are a lot of folks who think that God’s existence has been proven. And yes, with rigor. Indeed, this is exactly what Thomas Aquinas thought and ditto with other great philosophers and theologians. These people claim that they have a direct proof (or set of proofs) that move them into the fully gnostic theism category. Moreover, there are others who claim divine revelation for one reason or another.

I'm reluctant to address this because I just have a thumbnail sketch of the arguments that Thomas Aquinas presented as proofs. Addressing from the limited knowledge of these thumbnails may very well be me attacking a strawman. But to respectfully give you a reply I'll just say that I'm mentally prepared and kind of expecting that my ignorance will be exposed and I will to be totally .

But my understanding is that Aquinas has five proofs. From my thumbnail perspective the first three seem redundant. That is probably evidence enough that the thumbnail sketch is inadequate, but "oh well". My understanding is that these three basically say something created the universe, something gave it a beginning, and something set it in motion. And that something is God. Close?

I'm completely okay if that is just creating a definition and we can fill in the blank what "something", what "God" really is. This fails though when the conclusion is that "something" can only be the Judeau-Christian God. That logic is flawed. The conclusion might very well be correct; it is what I believe but the logic fails for one very simple reason (among others) - there has always been other options. And it only takes one for this to be a logical fail.

Now maybe for Aquinas the Christian God is the most plausible option, but at least from the thumbnail sketch this is not supported. And maybe all the other options seven plus centuries ago were such that his confidence was high with his choice such that he honestly thought he knew. Fair enough. He was just wrong that this was "proof".

Of course, in 2025 that something to the physics world is probably called "nothing" by us less scientifically inclined. Nothing created the universe, nothing gave it a beginning, and nothing set it in motion. And that may very well seem much less plausible to most than God, but it is more than enough to reject that one can know.

The other two are not that dissimilar. One I believe is the entire "answers in genesis" perspective, and the other is that the God of the Book of Job is morally superior to everything else. I don't think we really want to go there.

But my intention is still not to disprove God - especially since I believe. And it isn't to deal with these "proofs". While some are satisfying at some intuitive level, they are all logical failures. It takes only one alternative for "it must be God" to fail. No matter how much more intelligent their creators were than I am. No matter how ludicrous that the alternatives might sound. Especially since we believers should be aware that our claims are also ludicrous sounding.

Again, my intention is to challenge the double standards on what counts as knowing and when someone can conclude that they know and be intellectually honest. I am not saying that no believer can be intellectually honest claiming to know, except if we apply the same standard that you offered that a non-believer cannot be intellectually honest if they claimed to know. No goal post has been moved. No deep philosophical discussion is involved on my side. No big word like "epistemology" crossed my mind. No evaluation of proofs was needed other than to be respectful. This is just about what level one needs to "know", or "believe to know" to be "intellectually honest". Nothing else! And no need to discuss further as those that understand my point already get it and I am not likely at this point to get this point across to those that don't.

Now tell me how bad my thumbnails were. Obviously there needed to be more, but does any of the more change anything? I'm guessing those in the know are scoffing as they watch the strawman burn.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Moreover, it’s possible that God could reveal himself, and it turns out that he doesn’t fit any previously known definition.

Why is it that an atheists must not claim to know as long as there is some outside chance that they are wrong, but a believer can claim to know despite the possibility that they are completely wrong about God. If this God revealed themself, who claiming to know would have been correct?

Theologically I have asserted over the years that Pascal's Wager seems idiotic. I have to think that for a God that punish those that believe incorrectly that believing in the wrong God is far worse than believing in no God.

 

[Captain Cranks]

When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist.

This is really backwards. Replace God or Creator in the equation with anything you can think of that's silly and improbable. I used a herd of ponies in the center of the sun as an example but you're free to come up with your own. If someone were to say they believed whatever silly thing you came up with actually exists, it's not "a much stronger statement" for you to say it doesn't. As people keep saying, the onus of defending the assertion of existence is on the one claiming existence, not the one denying it.

 

[dgreen]

When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist.

This is really backwards. Replace God or Creator in the equation with anything you can think of that's silly and improbable. I used a herd of ponies in the center of the sun as an example but you're free to come up with your own. If someone were to say they believed whatever silly thing you came up with actually exists, it's not "a much stronger statement" for you to say it doesn't. As people keep saying, the onus of defending the assertion of existence is on the one claiming existence, not the one denying it.

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

 

[RCon]

When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist.

This is really backwards. Replace God or Creator in the equation with anything you can think of that's silly and improbable. I used a herd of ponies in the center of the sun as an example but you're free to come up with your own. If someone were to say they believed whatever silly thing you came up with actually exists, it's not "a much stronger statement" for you to say it doesn't. As people keep saying, the onus of defending the assertion of existence is on the one claiming existence, not the one denying it.

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

Replace "herd of ponies and the Sun" with "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" and we can get the same result. It would be ridiculous for us to suggest that someone claiming "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" doesn't have to defend that argument but someone claiming the opposite does.

 

[Captain Cranks]

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

I'm not sure why the debate would be about something that's not defined or agreed upon. Who would have a debate where one side is defending a specific or personal premise and the other has to deny something broader than that?

That sounds like a big straw man clusterpoo to me.

 

[dgreen]

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

I'm not sure why the debate would be about something that's not defined or agreed upon. Who would have a debate where one side is defending a specific or personal premise and the other has to deny something broader than that?

Good question. But I do think that is what most debates about God’s existence are like. Probably why I have grown to dislike the debate of God‘s existence.

 

[Captain Cranks]

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

I'm not sure why the debate would be about something that's not defined or agreed upon. Who would have a debate where one side is defending a specific or personal premise and the other has to deny something broader than that?

Good question. But I do think that is what most debates about God’s existence are like. Probably why I have grown to dislike the debate of God‘s existence.

Yeah, I mean if that's not established at the get-go, it's probably not a very good debate.

 

[dgreen]

When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist.

This is really backwards. Replace God or Creator in the equation with anything you can think of that's silly and improbable. I used a herd of ponies in the center of the sun as an example but you're free to come up with your own. If someone were to say they believed whatever silly thing you came up with actually exists, it's not "a much stronger statement" for you to say it doesn't. As people keep saying, the onus of defending the assertion of existence is on the one claiming existence, not the one denying it.

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

Replace "herd of ponies and the Sun" with "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" and we can get the same result. It would be ridiculous for us to suggest that someone claiming "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" doesn't have to defend that argument but someone claiming the opposite does.

I will admit that I have not been following this entire line of discussion. However, what I am commenting on doesn’t have to do with a responsibility to defending a position (burden of proof) as much as it has to do with making a particular claim or holding a particular belief. The argument is that it takes a much stronger argument to counter “lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" if one doesn’t even know what that thing is. How can you argue against something if you don’t know what it is?

Usually, beliefs like "God doesn't exist" are beliefs based on a particular notion of that "God" is. For example, maybe something like, "The God of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". But, even then, that's more accurately something like, "The God of a modern, Western literal interpretation of an English translation of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". And it's perfectly fine to hold that belief. However, that's not necessarily an argument against another notion of God that might be out there. And, with 8 billion people on this planet, there are potentially 8 billion different notions of what "God" is. And, in reality, as many of us believers can attest to, we each have multiple notions of who and what we think God is depending on the day and our circumstances, so that number gets even bigger. And, if some "God" does exist, there's a decent chance it doesn't match any of the perceived notions that exist now nor ever existed. It's a big claim to say that of an infinite number of notions of X, none of them exist.

Again, I'm just trying to explain what I think the argument is and not necessarily trying to argue for or against something here. It's always dangerous to jump into a conversation midstream and try to reword another poster's comments, so I'll wait and see if @bolzano thinks I accurately stated his argument.

 

[Captain Cranks]

When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist.

This is really backwards. Replace God or Creator in the equation with anything you can think of that's silly and improbable. I used a herd of ponies in the center of the sun as an example but you're free to come up with your own. If someone were to say they believed whatever silly thing you came up with actually exists, it's not "a much stronger statement" for you to say it doesn't. As people keep saying, the onus of defending the assertion of existence is on the one claiming existence, not the one denying it.

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

Replace "herd of ponies and the Sun" with "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" and we can get the same result. It would be ridiculous for us to suggest that someone claiming "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" doesn't have to defend that argument but someone claiming the opposite does.

I will admit that I have not been following this entire line of discussion. However, what I am commenting on doesn’t have to do with a responsibility to defending a position (burden of proof) as much as it has to do with making a particular claim or holding a particular belief. The argument is that it takes a much stronger argument to counter “lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" if one doesn’t even know what that thing is. How can you argue against something if you don’t know what it is?

Usually, beliefs like "God doesn't exist" are beliefs based on a particular notion of that "God" is. For example, maybe something like, "The God of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". But, even then, that's more accurately something like, "The God of a modern, Western literal interpretation of an English translation of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". And it's perfectly fine to hold that belief. However, that's not necessarily an argument against another notion of God that might be out there. And, with 8 billion people on this planet, there are potentially 8 billion different notions of what "God" is. And, in reality, as many of us believers can attest to, we each have multiple notions of who and what we think God is depending on the day and our circumstances, so that number gets even bigger. And, if some "God" does exist, there's a decent chance it doesn't match any of the perceived notions that exist now nor ever existed. It's a big claim to say that of an infinite number of notions of X, none of them exist.

Again, I'm just trying to explain what I think the argument is and not necessarily trying to argue for or against something here. It's always dangerous to jump into a conversation midstream and try to reword another poster's comments, so I'll wait and see if @bolzano thinks I accurately stated his argument.

Would you agree that in the context of the original post of this thread, it's clearly making an assertion that requires a stronger argument than one the "not true" side has to make?

 

[dgreen]

When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist.

This is really backwards. Replace God or Creator in the equation with anything you can think of that's silly and improbable. I used a herd of ponies in the center of the sun as an example but you're free to come up with your own. If someone were to say they believed whatever silly thing you came up with actually exists, it's not "a much stronger statement" for you to say it doesn't. As people keep saying, the onus of defending the assertion of existence is on the one claiming existence, not the one denying it.

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

Replace "herd of ponies and the Sun" with "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" and we can get the same result. It would be ridiculous for us to suggest that someone claiming "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" doesn't have to defend that argument but someone claiming the opposite does.

I will admit that I have not been following this entire line of discussion. However, what I am commenting on doesn’t have to do with a responsibility to defending a position (burden of proof) as much as it has to do with making a particular claim or holding a particular belief. The argument is that it takes a much stronger argument to counter “lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" if one doesn’t even know what that thing is. How can you argue against something if you don’t know what it is?

Usually, beliefs like "God doesn't exist" are beliefs based on a particular notion of that "God" is. For example, maybe something like, "The God of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". But, even then, that's more accurately something like, "The God of a modern, Western literal interpretation of an English translation of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". And it's perfectly fine to hold that belief. However, that's not necessarily an argument against another notion of God that might be out there. And, with 8 billion people on this planet, there are potentially 8 billion different notions of what "God" is. And, in reality, as many of us believers can attest to, we each have multiple notions of who and what we think God is depending on the day and our circumstances, so that number gets even bigger. And, if some "God" does exist, there's a decent chance it doesn't match any of the perceived notions that exist now nor ever existed. It's a big claim to say that of an infinite number of notions of X, none of them exist.

Again, I'm just trying to explain what I think the argument is and not necessarily trying to argue for or against something here. It's always dangerous to jump into a conversation midstream and try to reword another poster's comments, so I'll wait and see if @bolzano thinks I accurately stated his argument.

Would you agree that in the context of the original post of this thread, it's clearly making an assertion that requires a stronger argument than one the "not true" side has to make?

Yeah, I think that makes sense. As I think about it, it seems bolzano's argument comes down to "the more detailed and specific your claims, the stronger the statement is that's being made." And, he's arguing, "God doesn't exist" becomes a pretty detailed and specific claim when applied to the potentially infinite number of definitions for "God".

 

[dkp993]

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

I'm not sure why the debate would be about something that's not defined or agreed upon. Who would have a debate where one side is defending a specific or personal premise and the other has to deny something broader than that?

Good question. But I do think that is what most debates about God’s existence are like. Probably why I have grown to dislike the debate of God‘s existence.

Agreed, but this conversation isn’t about whether God exists or not. This conversation is largely happening because he’s arguing one side is intellectually honest in its argument and the other side isn’t (gnostic theism /agnostic atheist.)

 

[Captain Cranks]

When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist.

This is really backwards. Replace God or Creator in the equation with anything you can think of that's silly and improbable. I used a herd of ponies in the center of the sun as an example but you're free to come up with your own. If someone were to say they believed whatever silly thing you came up with actually exists, it's not "a much stronger statement" for you to say it doesn't. As people keep saying, the onus of defending the assertion of existence is on the one claiming existence, not the one denying it.

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

Replace "herd of ponies and the Sun" with "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" and we can get the same result. It would be ridiculous for us to suggest that someone claiming "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" doesn't have to defend that argument but someone claiming the opposite does.

I will admit that I have not been following this entire line of discussion. However, what I am commenting on doesn’t have to do with a responsibility to defending a position (burden of proof) as much as it has to do with making a particular claim or holding a particular belief. The argument is that it takes a much stronger argument to counter “lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" if one doesn’t even know what that thing is. How can you argue against something if you don’t know what it is?

Usually, beliefs like "God doesn't exist" are beliefs based on a particular notion of that "God" is. For example, maybe something like, "The God of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". But, even then, that's more accurately something like, "The God of a modern, Western literal interpretation of an English translation of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". And it's perfectly fine to hold that belief. However, that's not necessarily an argument against another notion of God that might be out there. And, with 8 billion people on this planet, there are potentially 8 billion different notions of what "God" is. And, in reality, as many of us believers can attest to, we each have multiple notions of who and what we think God is depending on the day and our circumstances, so that number gets even bigger. And, if some "God" does exist, there's a decent chance it doesn't match any of the perceived notions that exist now nor ever existed. It's a big claim to say that of an infinite number of notions of X, none of them exist.

Again, I'm just trying to explain what I think the argument is and not necessarily trying to argue for or against something here. It's always dangerous to jump into a conversation midstream and try to reword another poster's comments, so I'll wait and see if @bolzano thinks I accurately stated his argument.

Would you agree that in the context of the original post of this thread, it's clearly making an assertion that requires a stronger argument than one the "not true" side has to make?

Yeah, I think that makes sense. As I think about it, it seems bolzano's argument comes down to "the more detailed and specific your claims, the stronger the statement is that's being made." And, he's arguing, "God doesn't exist" becomes a pretty detailed and specific claim when applied to the potentially infinite number of definitions for "God".

Fair enough although my rebuttal to Paddington's version would apply to all versions of God that claims it's a creator of all that we see and are.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yeah, I think that makes sense. As I think about it, it seems bolzano's argument comes down to "the more detailed and specific your claims, the stronger the statement is that's being made." And, he's arguing, "God doesn't exist" becomes a pretty detailed and specific claim when applied to the potentially infinite number of definitions for "God".

I think in proper context the argument is

Can one know that no gods exists
--- versus ---
Can one know that a specific god, God exists

I think if one of those infinite gods did exist then there is an infinite to one chance that both sides of this argument is wrong. Neither knew anything! "Any" god is not generally what a theist believes in. This is the "I only don't believe in one more God than you do" idea. And I think once you suggest there might be "a" god instead of "the" god, claiming to know about "the" god is "intellectually dishonest" in the way it has been used here.

ETA: And I think that every believer should acknowledge that their idea of God is likely wrong in some way. If just terribly incomplete.

 

[bolzano]

When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist.

This is really backwards. Replace God or Creator in the equation with anything you can think of that's silly and improbable. I used a herd of ponies in the center of the sun as an example but you're free to come up with your own. If someone were to say they believed whatever silly thing you came up with actually exists, it's not "a much stronger statement" for you to say it doesn't. As people keep saying, the onus of defending the assertion of existence is on the one claiming existence, not the one denying it.

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

Replace "herd of ponies and the Sun" with "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" and we can get the same result. It would be ridiculous for us to suggest that someone claiming "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" doesn't have to defend that argument but someone claiming the opposite does.

I will admit that I have not been following this entire line of discussion. However, what I am commenting on doesn’t have to do with a responsibility to defending a position (burden of proof) as much as it has to do with making a particular claim or holding a particular belief. The argument is that it takes a much stronger argument to counter “lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" if one doesn’t even know what that thing is. How can you argue against something if you don’t know what it is?

Usually, beliefs like "God doesn't exist" are beliefs based on a particular notion of that "God" is. For example, maybe something like, "The God of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". But, even then, that's more accurately something like, "The God of a modern, Western literal interpretation of an English translation of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". And it's perfectly fine to hold that belief. However, that's not necessarily an argument against another notion of God that might be out there. And, with 8 billion people on this planet, there are potentially 8 billion different notions of what "God" is. And, in reality, as many of us believers can attest to, we each have multiple notions of who and what we think God is depending on the day and our circumstances, so that number gets even bigger. And, if some "God" does exist, there's a decent chance it doesn't match any of the perceived notions that exist now nor ever existed. It's a big claim to say that of an infinite number of notions of X, none of them exist.

Again, I'm just trying to explain what I think the argument is and not necessarily trying to argue for or against something here. It's always dangerous to jump into a conversation midstream and try to reword another poster's comments, so I'll wait and see if @bolzano thinks I accurately stated his argument.

Would you agree that in the context of the original post of this thread, it's clearly making an assertion that requires a stronger argument than one the "not true" side has to make?

Yeah, I think that makes sense. As I think about it, it seems bolzano's argument comes down to "the more detailed and specific your claims, the stronger the statement is that's being made." And, he's arguing, "God doesn't exist" becomes a pretty detailed and specific claim when applied to the potentially infinite number of definitions for "God".

Thank you, dgreen.

I’m a financial analyst by profession, not a lawyer or an academic. While one of my degrees is in math, I haven’t done this kind of argumentative writing (like proofs) in a couple of decades and I’m very rusty. So, I truly appreciate you stepping in and explaining my argument.

Another point I tried to make is that I reject the idea that the natural starting position is gnostic atheism. IMO, it’s agnosticism. When you say that you know that no God exists, I think that’s a positive statement that requires proof. So, the atheist needs to prove that he’s correct just as much as the theist does. Indeed, the burden lies on both of them. But, for the reasons that you explained better than me, that’s a much more difficult task for the atheist.

In an earlier post, I called atheism a negative philosophy because it basically amounts to disproving this or that theistic proof or religion. Well, the reason is because of what was said above. There has been no direct proof of atheism, i.e., one that’s independent of a theistic proof, not even by Bertrand Russell, perhaps the best known “atheist“ philosopher and arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. In fact, Russell conceded that while he was an “atheist” for public purposes, he was actually agnostic and it’s because he couldn’t prove that atheism is true.

As an aside, Russell spent a good chunk of his career trying to refute Thomas Aquinas. *The books that I have on Aristotelianism/ Scholasticism/ Thomism are littered with Russell’s counter arguments and the theists’ responses.* So, that should tell you how seriously Aquinas should be taken by modern believers and non-believers.

The starred sentence is part of why I’m not going to get into an argument over God’s existence here. Indeed, I would just be plagiarizing philosophers like Aristotle, Aquinas, Garrigou-Lagrange, Davies, Gilson, Feser, and Oderberg. If you’re truly interested in natural theology, please read those guys. I’m confident that, even if you remain unconvinced, you will find it edifying and gain an appreciation for the intellectual rigor of theism’s philosophical tradition.

 

[RCon]

When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist.

This is really backwards. Replace God or Creator in the equation with anything you can think of that's silly and improbable. I used a herd of ponies in the center of the sun as an example but you're free to come up with your own. If someone were to say they believed whatever silly thing you came up with actually exists, it's not "a much stronger statement" for you to say it doesn't. As people keep saying, the onus of defending the assertion of existence is on the one claiming existence, not the one denying it.

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

Replace "herd of ponies and the Sun" with "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" and we can get the same result. It would be ridiculous for us to suggest that someone claiming "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" doesn't have to defend that argument but someone claiming the opposite does.

I will admit that I have not been following this entire line of discussion. However, what I am commenting on doesn’t have to do with a responsibility to defending a position (burden of proof) as much as it has to do with making a particular claim or holding a particular belief. The argument is that it takes a much stronger argument to counter “lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" if one doesn’t even know what that thing is. How can you argue against something if you don’t know what it is?

Usually, beliefs like "God doesn't exist" are beliefs based on a particular notion of that "God" is. For example, maybe something like, "The God of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". But, even then, that's more accurately something like, "The God of a modern, Western literal interpretation of an English translation of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". And it's perfectly fine to hold that belief. However, that's not necessarily an argument against another notion of God that might be out there. And, with 8 billion people on this planet, there are potentially 8 billion different notions of what "God" is. And, in reality, as many of us believers can attest to, we each have multiple notions of who and what we think God is depending on the day and our circumstances, so that number gets even bigger. And, if some "God" does exist, there's a decent chance it doesn't match any of the perceived notions that exist now nor ever existed. It's a big claim to say that of an infinite number of notions of X, none of them exist.

Again, I'm just trying to explain what I think the argument is and not necessarily trying to argue for or against something here. It's always dangerous to jump into a conversation midstream and try to reword another poster's comments, so I'll wait and see if @bolzano thinks I accurately stated his argument.

Would you agree that in the context of the original post of this thread, it's clearly making an assertion that requires a stronger argument than one the "not true" side has to make?

Yeah, I think that makes sense. As I think about it, it seems bolzano's argument comes down to "the more detailed and specific your claims, the stronger the statement is that's being made." And, he's arguing, "God doesn't exist" becomes a pretty detailed and specific claim when applied to the potentially infinite number of definitions for "God".

Thank you, dgreen.

I’m a financial analyst by profession, not a lawyer or an academic. While one of my degrees is in math, I haven’t done this kind of argumentative writing (like proofs) in a couple of decades and I’m very rusty. So, I truly appreciate you stepping in and explaining my argument.

Another point I tried to make is that I reject the idea that the natural starting position is gnostic atheism. IMO, it’s agnosticism. When you say that you know that no God exists, I think that’s a positive statement that requires proof. So, the atheist needs to prove that he’s correct just as much as the theist does. Indeed, the burden lies on both of them. But, for the reasons that you explained better than me, that’s a much more difficult task for the atheist.

In an earlier post, I called atheism a negative philosophy because it basically amounts to disproving this or that theistic proof or religion. Well, the reason is because of what was said above. There has been no direct proof of atheism, i.e., one that’s independent of a theistic proof, not even by Bertrand Russell, perhaps the best known “atheist“ philosopher and arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. In fact, Russell conceded that while he was an “atheist” for public purposes, he was actually agnostic and it’s because he couldn’t prove that atheism is true.

As an aside, Russell spent a good chunk of his career trying to refute Thomas Aquinas. *The books that I have on Aristotelianism/ Scholasticism/ Thomism are littered with Russell’s counter arguments and the theists’ responses.* So, that should tell you how seriously Aquinas should be taken by modern believers and non-believers.

The starred sentence is part of why I’m not going to get into an argument over God’s existence here. Indeed, I would just be plagiarizing philosophers like Aristotle, Aquinas, Garrigou-Lagrange, Davies, Gilson, Feser, and Oderberg. If you’re truly interested in natural theology, please read those guys. I’m confident that, even if you remain unconvinced, you will find it edifying and gain an appreciation for the intellectual rigor of theism’s philosophical tradition.

As BFS said eloquently above, you're conflating "a god exists" with "the specific god in which I believe exists (and is the only god)". The second of those two statements is, by mathematical definition, equally as difficult to prove as "no god exists", because infinity and "infinity minus one" are functionally equivalent.

Would you agree that "the Christian god exists" (or pick any religion) and "the Christian god doesn't exist" are equally difficult to prove?

 

[bolzano]

This fails though when the conclusion is that "something" can only be the Judeau-Christian God. That logic is flawed. The conclusion might very well be correct; it is what I believe but the logic fails for one very simple reason (among others) - there has always been other options. And it only takes one for this to be a logical fail.

Now maybe for Aquinas the Christian God is the most plausible option, but at least from the thumbnail sketch this is not supported. And maybe all the other options seven plus centuries ago were such that his confidence was high with his choice such that he honestly thought he knew. Fair enough. He was just wrong that this was "proof".

Let’s assume that you accept Aquinas’s proofs and you now believe that God exists. From these proofs, the divine attributes follow as corollaries, with unity (or oneness) being of particular importance here. From unity, we have monotheism. So, the idea is to examine the great monotheistic faiths for the true one. Then, the claim is that the resurrection and perhaps other miracles prove it’s Christianity. Indeed, we have moved away from natural theology, and we’re neck-deep in revealed theology.

I can’t emphasize enough how much it pains me, but this is where I will concede that it’s problematic, at least for me. It’s on my to-do list, but I have not done the research required to say that I know the historical record of the resurrection (and other miracles). All I can do is rely upon the tradition that has been passed down through the centuries. While I think it’s compelling for various reasons (e.g., I believe the Church to be reliable), it’s not sufficient.

So, yes. I suppose I’m in a weird spot, where you’d say that I’m a gnostic theist, but I’m “agnostic” when it comes to Christianity, at least if we’re going by the dentition that gnostic = knowing via proof. But, I’m gonna put agnostic in quotes because I hope to be able to prove it .

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

but I have not done the research required to say that I know the historical record of the resurrection (and other miracles)

History is not anything that happened in the past. Instead, history are the events or people where there is enough evidence to develop a reasonable level of confidence that it happened (or the person exist). As an example, almost no one that lived during Jesus times left any kind of evidence that they lived. So, they're not historical. But they did live and exists. In the past. And all of the events of their lives happened, but they are all lost to history.

So even if the resurrection or some other miracle actually happened, there just isn't ever going to be enough evidence for a historian, using the tools of the trade to consider them historically. That being said, there is little doubt that the claim and then the belief in the resurrection is one of the most significant events in all of history, at least western.

A long-winded way of saying, that at least for historians (at least those I've read or watched on Great Courses or that recent video posted here) there is no historical record for the resurrection or any miracle. And there cannot be one.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

at least if we’re going by the dentition that gnostic = knowing via proof.

If we go back to the beginning of the conversation, I was largely going with the definition being offered with a small teak. But I don't really like the definition. But reading a lot about early Christianity gnostic has a more specific meaning (or meanings) for me. And while your posts are pretty weird, that entire first paragraph, I don't think that you've gone as weird as the Gnostics were.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

(e.g., I believe the Church to be reliable)

Said about 30 hours before reformation day

 

[Paddington]

The Old Testament was mostly settled in Christ's day. He quoted from it as authoritative and expected the people to believe it

I assume you know this is coming. Did Jesus believe/dictate Ecclesiastes? If so, how did he interpret it? Seems to suggest very strongly that this short existence is both meaningless and all there is. Death is final. So, all one can really do is "eat, drink, and be merry". Is that wrong? Also, in context of other conversations going on it seems to very strongly suggests that kinds of knowledge or wisdom as presented in the other wisdom books is beyond humanity grasp. Is that wrong? I already searched Les' site. Almost nothing. Almost!

This seems that the author of Ecclesiastes is addressing some of the very same questions that bring rise of apocalyptic thought, but with a very different conclusion. Is this wrong?

The Holy Spirit inspired Solomon to write it. The perspective is the natural state of man. The Bible is clear that we eill all be resurrected, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting destruction. We will all be judged.

Les Feldick's site had nothing about what? You need to listen to the lessons.

 

[Psychopav]

Here's some thoughts from someone who hasn't studied philosophy or theology enough to make anything close to resembling a rigorous argument:

• If God exists and wants us to have independent (and individual) free will, it really can't be proveable. If it were, free will would not be possible. Nobody doesn't believe in electricity, or the existence of germs, for example. If they didn't, we'd label them mad, even though most can't prove the existence of either. Our belief is based on the trust of experts and anecdotal support from our experience.
• You don't have to be a logician to accept rational argument. So the difference between believers and non-believers would be reduced to individual ignorance. That seems unfair and contrary to my experience, as I have known rational non-believers and irrational believers, both.
• Therefore the provability of God is a nice basis for systematic theology but not necessarily helpful in evangelization.
• Faith by definition requires a logical leap - at some point, or points, the individual is faced with a decision to believe in God or not. A decision affirming the existence of God is that leap of faith.
• This leap of faith can be informed by reason but must be more than merely logical.
• The testimony of believers is critical to the spreading of the faith. Like all relational networks, trust in ones already in relationship is necessary (but not sufficient) to create new connections.
• Faith, once embraced, grows as the common experience of the individual and the divine unfolds. Just like any human relationship (which makes sense as Jesus is himself human, after all).

For context, I am a deeply religious practicing cradle Catholic who does not accept the premise that the existence of God is provable in any meaningful way. I consider myself an existential Christian and the philosophical lens through which I view the world is that there are two realities: mine and God's, and that the goal of this life is to align my disordered perspective to His perfect one. From my side that's called conforming and from His proper orientation.

Ok I think that's enough thinking for one morning...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The Holy Spirit inspired Solomon to write it. The perspective is the natural state of man. The Bible is clear that we eill all be resurrected, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting destruction. We will all be judged.

Les Feldick's site had nothing about what? You need to listen to the lessons.

Did that inspiration include using words that would not exist yet for hundreds of years? Including "loanwords" from Persia?

Les Feldick site search reveals little except for this Ancient Apocalypse stuff. But if you have a video that predominantly speaks on Ecclesiastes then send a link. (I'm not asking you to do work to find it, just if you readily know of one.)

As far as the idea of the Bible being clear I guess that is fair once you get to the apocalyptic parts of the bible. Nothing for the first 1500 years or so suggests such a thing. Not Ecclesiastes. Not Job. Not anything else early. The idea that people will rise from the grave to be judged comes from the question of "why do good people suffer". In the days of the prophets, people suffered from being disobedient to God, for the reasons that Job's "friends" insisted his suffering was justified. But that was then and this now (Period post exile.) Now people do everything they can to follow the Law. Both that in the Torah and for some also the "oral Law". They keep the festivals. They perform the sacrifices. Yet good people still suffer. God's people while somewhat left alone, are still (or about to be) held captive again. How can this be? I think Ecclesiastes is one attempt at answering this. I think Job is another. But the answer that gain favor was the apocalypse.

The answer is that this is all just a temporary situation where the forces of evil have gained control of the world. But soon, real soon God is going to re-exert control destroying the forces of evil and all that follow. Ushering in the Kingdom of God. And no, you cannot align with evil, live a good life, and escape punishment with death. Oh no! In the end the dead will be risen out from Sheol and they too will face judgment. Good will prevail. God will prevail. The wicked will perish. And eventually, the wicked will be tormented. When the Bible gets here, it becomes clear.

And when this doesn't happen the kingdom of God on earth as in heaven, becomes more heaven.

 

[bolzano]

When you say that you’re an atheist, you’re making a much stronger statement than the theist.

This is really backwards. Replace God or Creator in the equation with anything you can think of that's silly and improbable. I used a herd of ponies in the center of the sun as an example but you're free to come up with your own. If someone were to say they believed whatever silly thing you came up with actually exists, it's not "a much stronger statement" for you to say it doesn't. As people keep saying, the onus of defending the assertion of existence is on the one claiming existence, not the one denying it.

His argument seems to center around the ambiguity of what “God” is. “God” is the English word we use to describe something that’s pretty mysterious. Saying “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” is like literally saying “X exists” or “X doesn’t exist” where X is something we don’t how to really describe. We know what a herd of ponies and the Sun are, so they are easier to argue for or against. Not knowing what X is, makes it a much stronger statement to argue against it. That’s how I’m understanding his argument, at least.

Replace "herd of ponies and the Sun" with "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" and we can get the same result. It would be ridiculous for us to suggest that someone claiming "lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" doesn't have to defend that argument but someone claiming the opposite does.

I will admit that I have not been following this entire line of discussion. However, what I am commenting on doesn’t have to do with a responsibility to defending a position (burden of proof) as much as it has to do with making a particular claim or holding a particular belief. The argument is that it takes a much stronger argument to counter “lithwittle spectacled jumblifhon lives in the kwilmonjul organ of each human body" if one doesn’t even know what that thing is. How can you argue against something if you don’t know what it is?

Usually, beliefs like "God doesn't exist" are beliefs based on a particular notion of that "God" is. For example, maybe something like, "The God of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". But, even then, that's more accurately something like, "The God of a modern, Western literal interpretation of an English translation of the Protestant Christian Bible doesn't exist". And it's perfectly fine to hold that belief. However, that's not necessarily an argument against another notion of God that might be out there. And, with 8 billion people on this planet, there are potentially 8 billion different notions of what "God" is. And, in reality, as many of us believers can attest to, we each have multiple notions of who and what we think God is depending on the day and our circumstances, so that number gets even bigger. And, if some "God" does exist, there's a decent chance it doesn't match any of the perceived notions that exist now nor ever existed. It's a big claim to say that of an infinite number of notions of X, none of them exist.

Again, I'm just trying to explain what I think the argument is and not necessarily trying to argue for or against something here. It's always dangerous to jump into a conversation midstream and try to reword another poster's comments, so I'll wait and see if @bolzano thinks I accurately stated his argument.

Would you agree that in the context of the original post of this thread, it's clearly making an assertion that requires a stronger argument than one the "not true" side has to make?

Yeah, I think that makes sense. As I think about it, it seems bolzano's argument comes down to "the more detailed and specific your claims, the stronger the statement is that's being made." And, he's arguing, "God doesn't exist" becomes a pretty detailed and specific claim when applied to the potentially infinite number of definitions for "God".

Thank you, dgreen.

I’m a financial analyst by profession, not a lawyer or an academic. While one of my degrees is in math, I haven’t done this kind of argumentative writing (like proofs) in a couple of decades and I’m very rusty. So, I truly appreciate you stepping in and explaining my argument.

Another point I tried to make is that I reject the idea that the natural starting position is gnostic atheism. IMO, it’s agnosticism. When you say that you know that no God exists, I think that’s a positive statement that requires proof. So, the atheist needs to prove that he’s correct just as much as the theist does. Indeed, the burden lies on both of them. But, for the reasons that you explained better than me, that’s a much more difficult task for the atheist.

In an earlier post, I called atheism a negative philosophy because it basically amounts to disproving this or that theistic proof or religion. Well, the reason is because of what was said above. There has been no direct proof of atheism, i.e., one that’s independent of a theistic proof, not even by Bertrand Russell, perhaps the best known “atheist“ philosopher and arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. In fact, Russell conceded that while he was an “atheist” for public purposes, he was actually agnostic and it’s because he couldn’t prove that atheism is true.

As an aside, Russell spent a good chunk of his career trying to refute Thomas Aquinas. *The books that I have on Aristotelianism/ Scholasticism/ Thomism are littered with Russell’s counter arguments and the theists’ responses.* So, that should tell you how seriously Aquinas should be taken by modern believers and non-believers.

The starred sentence is part of why I’m not going to get into an argument over God’s existence here. Indeed, I would just be plagiarizing philosophers like Aristotle, Aquinas, Garrigou-Lagrange, Davies, Gilson, Feser, and Oderberg. If you’re truly interested in natural theology, please read those guys. I’m confident that, even if you remain unconvinced, you will find it edifying and gain an appreciation for the intellectual rigor of theism’s philosophical tradition.

As BFS said eloquently above, you're conflating "a god exists" with "the specific god in which I believe exists (and is the only god)". The second of those two statements is, by mathematical definition, equally as difficult to prove as "no god exists", because infinity and "infinity minus one" are functionally equivalent.

Would you agree that "the Christian god exists" (or pick any religion) and "the Christian god doesn't exist" are equally difficult to prove?

No, I’m not conflating stuff. If anything, that’s you.

What I think you’re asking is: How can a religious person claim to know something like their religion is the true religion (i.e., their God is the true God)?

Yes, stating “my religion is the true religion” is a much stronger claim than saying “a God exists”. In fact, I said in a post above that I don’t claim to know with certainty that my religion is truth. But, that’s not what we were talking about.

 

[Captain Cranks]

The Holy Spirit inspired Solomon to write it. The perspective is the natural state of man. The Bible is clear that we eill all be resurrected, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting destruction. We will all be judged.

Les Feldick's site had nothing about what? You need to listen to the lessons.

Did that inspiration include using words that would not exist yet for hundreds of years? Including "loanwords" from Persia?

Les Feldick site search reveals little except for this Ancient Apocalypse stuff. But if you have a video that predominantly speaks on Ecclesiastes then send a link. (I'm not asking you to do work to find it, just if you readily know of one.)

As far as the idea of the Bible being clear I guess that is fair once you get to the apocalyptic parts of the bible. Nothing for the first 1500 years or so suggests such a thing. Not Ecclesiastes. Not Job. Not anything else early. The idea that people will rise from the grave to be judged comes from the question of "why do good people suffer". In the days of the prophets, people suffered from being disobedient to God, for the reasons that Job's "friends" insisted his suffering was justified. But that was then and this now (Period post exile.) Now people do everything they can to follow the Law. Both that in the Torah and for some also the "oral Law". They keep the festivals. They perform the sacrifices. Yet good people still suffer. God's people while somewhat left alone, are still (or about to be) held captive again. How can this be? I think Ecclesiastes is one attempt at answering this. I think Job is another. But the answer that gain favor was the apocalypse.

The answer is that this is all just a temporary situation where the forces of evil have gained control of the world. But soon, real soon God is going to re-exert control destroying the forces of evil and all that follow. Ushering in the Kingdom of God. And no, you cannot align with evil, live a good life, and escape punishment with death. Oh no! In the end the dead will be risen out from Sheol and they too will face judgment. Good will prevail. God will prevail. The wicked will perish. And eventually, the wicked will be tormented. When the Bible gets here, it becomes clear.

And when this doesn't happen the kingdom of God on earth as in heaven, becomes more heaven.

I used your post as kindling for ChatGPT to summarize the evolution of the afterlife concept of Jews/Christians.

Period	Approx. Date	View of the Afterlife	Key Concept
Patriarchal / Early Israelite	Before 600 BCE	Sheol — shadowy afterlife for all	Death as final rest
Exilic / Post-Exilic	600–400 BCE	Glimmers of resurrection hope	Vindication beyond death
Apocalyptic Judaism	200–50 BCE	Bodily resurrection + final judgment	Cosmic justice
Early Christianity	30–100 CE	Jesus’s resurrection inaugurates the end-times	Resurrection through Christ
Later Christianity	100–500 CE	Heaven/hell moralized, “Kingdom” spiritualized	Eternal life with God

 

[bolzano]

I think in proper context the argument is

Can one know that no gods exists
--- versus ---
Can one know that a specific god, God exists

No, it’s not. It’s a stronger claim to say something like “my God exists and he is the true God” than it is to say “a God exists”.

There are plenty of people who believe that God exists but they’re less sure about the truth of their religious tradition or even their conception of God. As I noted in a previous post, I’m an example of someone who would claim to know that God exists (via reason), but I don’t claim to know everything about him, let alone whether my religion is 100% true.

The proper context is:

Gnostic theism- I know that a God exist.
vs.
Gnostic atheism- I know that no God exists.

Which claim is stronger?

Again, a theist only needs to show that a God exists, while an atheist needs to show that no God exists. To go one step further, the theist only needs to work with one definition of God, whereas the atheist needs to deal with all of them. Therefore, the atheist’s claim is much stronger.

The gnostic is claiming that he does know, whether he be a theist or an atheist. An agnostic would say that he doesn’t know and/or it’s impossible to know, one way or the other. Due to what was said above, the gnostic atheist is saying that he knows a very strong claim to be true; indeed, it’s the strongest claim of all on the gnostic/ agnostic and theist/ atheist spectrum.

So, I’m not lowering the bar for the theist and/ or raising it for the atheist, as many have accused me of doing. If the bar it’s higher for the atheist, it’s only because he is making a stronger claim, perhaps stronger than he realized. Hence the “intellectually honest” comment that sparked this entire discussion.

PS: I’m sorry if I offended anyone with the “intellectually honest” thing. It was a poor choice of words.