Which god is God?

[SallyF]

Many, many cultures have imagined God in many, many ways. Certain cultures declare everyone else's idea of God to be false.

How do we objectively determine whose version of God is NOT false?

[2ndRateMind]

Mind consciousness.

I haven't really tackled philosophy of mind in my reading, but this seems to be true a priori. If one can be conscious of one's mind, to me that implies that consciousness and mind are separate things, even if they do interact.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[rikuoamero]

You say your experience is absolutely true...so 2RM cannot be wrong...?

I have made mistakes in the past, I admit. But it is vanishingly rare, these days!


Best wishes, 2RM.

So then can I safely tuck "God confirms his presence" in the "False" box? Clearly you are wrong about that statement, since God never confirmed his presence to me.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 102 by rikuoamero]

You can put it where you want. But I have to say I have found it useful to withhold judgment on many things, and stick them in the 'provisionally' true or 'provisionally' false boxes. That allows one easily to recant, at a later stage, should one prefer to do so. Or simply to accept new information without it interfering too much with one's current world-view.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Don McIntosh]

[Replying to post 83 by Don McIntosh]

When I mention "evidence" I appeal to publicly accessible data. In the case of the resurrection of Jesus that means historical data, specifically: the widely attested apostolic testimony that Jesus had been buried in a tomb and had subsequently appeared to them following his death by crucifixion; the birth of the early church, in Jerusalem, on the preaching of the resurrection, and in the face of violent persecution; and the remarkably sudden, complete conversion of Saul of Tarsus, formerly a leader in the earliest efforts to destroy the Christian movement, based on his testimony (for which he later proved willing to die) that Christ had personally confronted him on the road to Damascus.

So sayeth the propaganda of the Jesus cult.

What? No. Again, publicly accessible data is objective evidence, the stuff of rational inferences. You can try to argue that the inferences are not valid, or maybe not strong enough to be warranted, but you can't assert that there's no basis for the inferences " because that's what evidence is.

But I will grant you this: phrases like "the propaganda of the Jesus cult" do pack a certain rhetorical punch, even if the evidence for Christianity is clearly not propaganda and a religion of over two billion followers is clearly more than a cult.

You have not nominated your version of God.

Jesus Christ was nominated God many centuries ago by men who heard his teachings, self-pronouncements and predictions, saw his miracles, knew him to be executed by crucifixion, saw him alive again afterward, and who were finally killed for preaching what by then was obvious: Jesus is God. As C.S. Lewis reminded his readers, "I did not invent Christianity."

You have not demonstrated that it exists.

That may be true, depending on what exactly you mean by "demonstrate." If you mean that I am not able to detect God with my senses or with scientific instruments, and then show you my findings, then yes, I cannot demonstrate that God exists. This is why I said earlier that God is not supposed to be a "finite physical object" in the first place.

Now at this point you need to understand that while Christians may bear the initial burden of proof, they no longer bear it alone once evidence for Christianity has been provided. I have provided some of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and even explained to you what evidence is, how it works to justify an inference, and why an inference should not be confused with physical evidence itself. Now the burden is yours, to explain exactly why the evidence provided for the resurrection is not sufficient to warrant the inference that Jesus rose from the dead.

Watch a courtroom documentary sometime. Yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but in itself that's not nearly enough for an acquittal. The defense does not simply reiterate their belief that the prosecution has not demonstrated its case; they have to argue their own case. They have to explain why the prosecution's case is weak, why the defense has a better explanation for the facts, etc.

Remember, this is a debate forum. You can't just sit back and repeat, in the face of evidence provided, "You have not demonstrated..." But you can argue your own case, and I invite you to do that.

[Bust Nak]

So sayeth the propaganda of the Jesus cult.

Moderator Warning

Do not refer to the teachings of Christianity as "propaganda of the Jesus cult."

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 71 by 2ndRateMind]

But once one comes to faith, God confirms His presence in manifold subjective ways.

As a former Christian, I reject this claim of yours. I had faith, and yet no God ever "confirmed his presence in manifold subjective ways".

Fair enough. I respect your testimony. Nevertheless, it is entirely contrary to my own experience.

Best wishes, 2RM.

To the bold...
Tongue talking, drunk in the Holy Ghost street evangelizing Christian of 2 decades here. I also reject your claim for being a false one.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 104 by Don McIntosh]

But I will grant you this: phrases like "the propaganda of the Jesus cult" do pack a certain rhetorical punch, even if the evidence for Christianity is clearly not propaganda and a religion of over two billion followers is clearly more than a cult.

propaganda[ prop-uh-gan-duh ]SHOW IPA
EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR propaganda ON THESAURUS.COM

noun
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
Roman Catholic Church.
a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions.
a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.
Archaic. an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/propaganda?s=ts

The writings of the Jewish organisation propagating the doctrines and principals of their leader Joshua/Jesus as their Anointed One/Messiah/Christ clearly fit the definitions of propaganda.

It was even an official term used by the planet's largest Christian organisation.


Not a soul EVER offers a scrap of any sort of evidence that so much as a single verse came in any way from any version of "God".


I put it to you that the term "propaganda" is accurate.



cult[ kuhlt ]SHOW IPA
EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR cult ON THESAURUS.COM

noun
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers:
the physical fitness cult.
the object of such devotion.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cult?s=t

I put it to you that the definitions of "cult" are accurate descriptions of the numerous versions of Christianity.


I put it to you that when what is now regarded by some as the "New Testament" section of the "Word of God" was first written, Christian Judaism was regarded by the mainstream religions as a cult - a "pernicious superstition" according to Tacitus.


Christian teachings may be one thing, but the "New Testament" fits very accurately and firmly as "cult propaganda".

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 1 by SallyF]

How do we objectively determine whose version of God is NOT false?

To converse about this question is indicative of gross dismissal of intelligence! It is unanswerable! It is futile -- and is it necessary?

Why are there gods; why argue whether there are gods? Why are we pursuing this notion that there has to be god(s)?

Because of the above we have endured many wars and countless killings in the name of deities that remain non-showing anonymous ghosts of primal fear!

The term "objectively" is utilized in the OP, as if to give the subject gravitus. There is no gravitus to the subject! Pure and simple, WE ARE HERE AND THEY ARE NOT -- just ask my bill collectors.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 104 by Don McIntosh]

Watch a courtroom documentary sometime. Yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but in itself that's not nearly enough for an acquittal. The defense does not simply reiterate their belief that the prosecution has not demonstrated its case; they have to argue their own case. They have to explain why the prosecution's case is weak, why the defense has a better explanation for the facts, etc.

It might shock you to learn that in a courtroom setting, Christianity would lose. It's main, or should I say, only piece of quote unquote evidence is the Bible, but the problem is, such cannot be entered into the record as an exhibit. It's a document, or series of documents, but documents cannot be shown by a prosecuting lawyer willy nilly as if they are what he says they are. A lawyer working for a husband cannot just offer up a document he says is from a private investigator whom the husband hired to investigate possible infidelity on the part of the wife: no, the investigator has to come into court, testify as to his identity and to his authorship of the report, that it was done in the normal course of his duties.
If this doesn't happen, if the lawyer doesn't have the investigator come in, then the document is regarded as hearsay. It's a case then of "I the lawyer, say this document says it's from the private investigator" but he offers no reason to the court (judge and/or jury) to accept that. Without the PI's testimony, for all they know the lawyer could have forged the report.

Can this be done with the Bible, or any document from the Bible? Nope. None, if any, of the authors are known for sure, and even if we ignore all of that, none of the New Testament is a first hand account of "what happened". We can't put the author of Gospel Luke, for example, on the stand to testify to his identity because one, he's dead, and two, we don't know who he is, or why we should regard this document he wrote as being of any strength.
To tie this into the example up above of the cheating wife, this is like the husband's lawyer waving a document saying it's from a PI, whose name he doesn't know, and that the PI's report isn't actually the PI's own experience, but rather what he supposedly heard from unnamed and unknown others years after the 'fact'.
The wife's lawyer just has to point out to the court how incredibly weak this all is. The wife's lawyer doesn't have to prove the wife's innocence.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 100 by Razorsedge]

The process starts in your head but it ends at a different level of reality. When you meditate on self, this involves isolating the mind from consciousness. From there you're no longer experiencing with your "head" but rather you're experiencing the reality in a pure conscious state.

The "pure conscious state" is still only happening inside your head.


The "pure conscious state", the "reality" is demonstrating that "God" only exists inside the minds of the faithfull, and "God" can be anything they imagine it to be.