must explain what you mean by the term, — JerseyFlight

God=Jesus

If you're scared say you're scared!!

God=Jesus — 3017amen

And so what is a God? I know Jesus to be a literary figure that may or may not have existed.

And so what is a God? I know Jesus to be a literary figure that may or may not have existed. — JerseyFlight

I'm sorry is there a misunderstanding as to why you're unable to answer my question? Let me post it again below, and/or maybe take a day or two to think about it, no rush (kind of like you deferred to metaphysician undercover in the mathematical thread).

"Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?"

And, for clarification, I've answered that, in Christianity, Jesus is God.

Thirdly, I've already advised you that I'm a Christian Existentialist. And you are... ?

Jesus is God. — 3017amen

When you tell me that Jesus is a Snark I still need to know what a Snark is. Saying Jesus is one does not explain it.

What's a snark,?

What's a snark,? — 3017amen

Read up on the burden of proof. You introduce the term you have the obligation to define it. All that has taken place here is juvenile evasion on your part. Your interaction doesn't even qualify as a form of skilled posturing. If you want to ask a valid question then don't pack it with controversial premises.

If you want to ask a valid question then don't pack it with controversial premises.
8m — JerseyFlight

I'm not following that, what's so controversial about the question??
Jesus=God, right?

Or, maybe let's start from your so-called premise; what's a Snark?

God=Jesus — 3017amen

Not in any Christian faith I am aware. Nonsense alert. 3017 is typing.

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood

Some people do, and some people don't. The irony is that Philosophy itself, posit concepts of God.
And of course science does as well (theoretical physicists, cognitive science). — 3017amen

Well there are theistic philosophers or god believing people who work in science/philosophical disciplines and there are those who claim that a god (undefined term) serves as a better hypothesis, explanation, or predictor of how the universe came to be or is. Usually with such a term (god) being adorned frequently with anthropomorphic idealizations such as a personality, free will, moral duties, etc.

Jesus=God, right? — 3017amen

Well you haven't ever defined god here. I'd advise you to stop dodging as you are doing to him and you have in the past done to me. Clarify what it's that you mean by the term "god" in positive terms.

If you're scared say you're scared!! — 3017amen

Stop with this dodging and please clarify the term for this person.

And, for clarification, I've answered that, in Christianity, Jesus is God. — 3017amen

God you have not defined for this person or anyone else in this thread. Remember that accepting the existence of vagueness metaphysically/ontologically does not mean you can use it in an argument when you still expect us to not see it as vague.

"Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?" — 3017amen

Depends on the abstract reasoning and mental maps were talking about. Among the many learned or "inherent" mental processes/tools if we're unable to parse one concept as correctly matching our experiences as well as the abstractions beyond said appearances (already held tentative models) then it would seem such a model may be rather useless.

I'd also kind of preface here that when you say "objective reasoning" i'm aware of a sort of intuition regarding what objective is but reasoning is not so clear. Reasoning can vary from inductive to deductive as well as float among many different logical systems (para-consistent to classical) but some combination or use of these methods or some mixture does serve us considerable success in predicting events in our experiences.

and i'd recommend you both be extremely careful with the language (not talking about respect) that you use in arguing or discussing with .

Well you haven't ever defined god here. I'd advise you to stop dodging as you are doing to him and you have in the past done to me. Clarify what it's that you mean by the term "god" in positive terms. — substantivalism

I'm really at a loss. Jesus of Nazareth. Does that define it better?

Reasoning can vary from inductive to deductive as well as float among many different logical systems (para-consistent to classical) but some combination or use of these methods or some mixture does serve us considerable success in predicting events in our experiences. — substantivalism

But that doesn't explain the nature of consciousness, does it? I mean, how does deduction provide for such explanation?

And so if you can't answer the question relative to your own consciousness, how can you posit no God?

Otherwise, how can the blind person describe the existence of the color red?

I'm really at a loss. Jesus of Nazareth. Does that define it better? — 3017amen

Well you saying "Jesus = God" is at best a renaming of the biblical character Jesus calling him now god or at worst a sneaking in of unstated characteristics that aren't readily covered by a reading of the original source material. I can call jeff "bill" but whatever characteristics a "bill" has to have to be one must be satisfied by jeff without extra stuff tagged on.

But that doesn't explain the nature of consciousness, does it? I mean, how does deduction provide for such explanation? — 3017amen

Never said it did only that such methods would prove useful in predicting either our own experiences or upon reflection of our abstract models (naive realism mixed with some biological understanding of human beings) you could find that certain ideas from other models prove consistent as well as fruitful in terms of predictive success.

And so if you can't answer the question relative to your own consciousness, how can you posit no God? — 3017amen

Only if the term is defined and the assumptions clarified can we make an assessment as to whether such an entity is consistent with said experiences/abstract understanding of the world for a certain person.

Otherwise, how can the blind person describe the existence of the color red? — 3017amen

They cannot just as a person who posits the existence of only their own mind can't help but act (strangely enough) as if they aren't alone nor truly be worthy of ruling their experiences fully (can they demand when they slam into the wall when to feel pain or not feel pain).

Well you saying "Jesus = God" is at best a renaming of the biblical character Jesus — substantivalism

1. From the Christian Bible/history book, see John, Exodus, et.al.

Never said it did only that such methods would prove useful in predicting either our own experiences or upon reflection of our abstract models (naive realism mixed with some biological understanding of human beings) you could find that certain ideas from other models prove consistent as well as fruitful in terms of predictive success — substantivalism

2. Okay so how can you explain your consciousness (conscious existence)?
3. What's an abstract model?

Only if the term is defined and the assumptions clarified can we make an assessment as to whether such an entity is consistent with said experiences/abstract understanding of the world for a certain person. — substantivalism

4. If you are an atheist, how were you able to determine no God?
5. What kind of experiences are you referring to?
6. What are examples of' abstract understanding of the world'?

They cannot just as a person who posits the existence of only their own mind can't help but act (strangely enough) as if they aren't alone nor truly be worthy of ruling their experiences fully (can they demand when they slam into the wall when to feel pain or not feel pain). — substantivalism

7. Is that a metaphysical theory of consciousness, of some sort?
8. Does that translate into a form of Subjectivism; subjective truth?

FYI.

"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby." https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood
“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

1. From the Christian Bible/history book, see John, Exodus, et.al. — 3017amen

So it is a language game being played?

2. Okay so how can you explain your consciousness (conscious existence)? — 3017amen

Something we call conscious existence exists and it has rather intriguing conceptual features that repeat. By explain here you mean describe, right? As to explain if meant to mean discover the true nature of said entity is an impossible thing to perform by you or me.

3. What's an abstract model? — 3017amen

A language or collection of terms that match directly to our experiences but also new terms that relay relations/properties that aren't readily perceptually apparent but prove useful in navigating our experiences. Think of the terms used to describe what resides within a black box even though we cannot see within it.

4. If you are an atheist, how were you able to determine no God? — 3017amen

I've followed a four square of definitions regarding the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist, and theist in which specify not just whether you believe in god (atheist or theist) but also if you consider such an entity to be known or unknown (agnostic or gnostic) so a gnostic atheist wouldn't believe in god and consider it non existant. I can't take any of them until you specify what this "god" is so I remain ignostic.

5. What kind of experiences are you referring to? — 3017amen

Your experiences perceptual (sensory) or sudden experiences from within or thoughts.

6. What are examples of' abstract understanding of the world'? — 3017amen

Naive realism (the kind of thinking about the world your born with/learn about early on) and most every scientific model.

7. Is that a metaphysical theory of consciousness, of some sort? — 3017amen

No, merely a thought experiment regarding the fact that even a person following solipsism clearly doesn't control his reality as much as he boasts that he does.

8. Does that translate into a form of Subjectivism; subjective truth? — 3017amen

I don't know. You'll need to clarify.

You have done more than enough for 3017amen. :grin: It's clear he just continues to change the subject. I have met some intelligent people on this Forum, he is not one of them, his intellectual insecurity is brutally painful to see. He is one of the most incompetent dialecticians I have encountered on this Forum. It's pretty obvious when he shows up in threads that he is limited to the same stale polemic ("explain your consciousness homie") and the same shallow techniques. I have no doubt this stuff works on people around him, but it is not the stuff of thought, it is lacking in honesty and intellectual integrity, which usually means a thinker is just trying to prove something to themselves or other people as opposed to going after truth. It's pretty clear that he's afraid to discuss his theism with any kind of transparency, because he's afraid he might lose it, which is a well founded fear.

1. From the Christian Bible/history book, see John, Exodus, et.al . — 3017amen
So it is a language game being played? — substantivalism

I'm not following that one Sub, how is the so-called historical account of Jesus a language game?

2. Okay so how can you explain your consciousness (conscious existence)? — 3017amen
Something we call conscious existence exists and it has rather intriguing conceptual features that repeat. By explain here you mean describe, right? As to explain if meant to mean discover the true nature of said entity is an impossible thing to perform by you or me. — substantivalism

No, not describe. If we describe, we will encounter dialectic/both-and which in turn, transcendent of formal logic and/or binary dichotomous thinking. Nonetheless, I am certainly willing to explore your notion of describing how the Freudian unconscious, conscious and subconscious mind all work together in unison.

Otherwise, to answer you succinctly, I am speaking of the nature of existence, the thing-in-itself.
And so, please feel free to either describe or explain the nature of your consciousness itself, without encountering an impasse using whichever form of logic or Philosophy you choose (or psychology). For our purpose of EOG topic's, I will save you the time and go on record that you cannot, and that you/we will both uncover and discover some form of brute mystery. Which in turn, goes back to my question to you regarding a belief in no God/Jesus.

. What's an abstract model? — 3017amen
A language or collection of terms that match directly to our experiences but also new terms that relay relations/properties that aren't readily perceptually apparent but prove useful in navigating our experiences. Think of the terms used to describe what resides within a black box even though we cannot see within it. — substantivalism

And so the question related to consciousness there. Accordingly, are you saying abstract models help us understand something? In our context, that is an important question by the way.

. If you are an atheist, how were you able to determine no God? — 3017amen
I've followed a four square of definitions regarding the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist, and theist in which specify not just whether you believe in god (atheist or theist) but also if you consider such an entity to be known or unknown (agnostic or gnostic) so a gnostic atheist wouldn't believe in god and consider it non existant. I can't take any of them until you specify what this "god" is so I remain ignostic. — substantivalism

Of course, the reality of that premise is incorrect. It's incorrect because you yourself, arrived at the conclusion of ambivalence by some logical means and method. Otherwise, from what definition of terms did you arrive at that conclusion. I've already told you mine.

5. What kind of experiences are you referring to? — 3017amen
Your experiences perceptual (sensory) or sudden experiences from within or thoughts. — substantivalism

That would lead my to believe you hold, once again for our purposes, a philosophical view of subjectivism, and/or a derivative of same( ?). Otherwise, there are those who have so-called religious experiences, which in turn become their truth, and their truth only.

What are examples of' abstract understanding of the world'? — 3017amen
Naive realism (the kind of thinking about the world your born with/learn about early on) and most every scientific model. — substantivalism

Can you explain that (Naïve realism) a little? Does it have to do with mathematical abstracts or something else? If it does, then you would be headed down a slippery slope of Platonic essences and forms, which would infer metaphysical existence of some sort, you know, like the laws of physics.

7. Is that a metaphysical theory of consciousness, of some sort? — 3017amen
No, merely a thought experiment regarding the fact that even a person following solipsism clearly doesn't control his reality as much as he boasts that he does. — substantivalism

Does that include the metaphysical Will? Do you think you have such a thing? (That's another important question, so take the time to think about it please.)

. Does that translate into a form of Subjectivism; subjective truth? — 3017amen
I don't know. You'll need to clarify. — substantivalism

See number 5. above. If you still don't quite get it, we can parse the differences between Objectivism and Subjectivism. But you will be called to justify your belief system (as I), during that process, along the way. In other words, it's a broad subject but very much relevant to our discussion.

It's clear he just continues to change the subject. I have met some intelligent people on this Forum, he is not one of them, his intellectual insecurity is brutally painful to see. He is one of the most incompetent dialecticians I have encountered on this Forum. — JerseyFlight

Trolling instead of answering my questions, again? Jeeze dude, you're incriminating yourself. Please, don't take it the wrong way, but during our thought experiment we just had, I have concluded that you're all bark and no bite, as suspected. Sometimes gut reactions are telling.

Just some friendly advice, I know EOG topics can get quite emotional, so you may want to consider the following, which is also quite prophetic (no pun intended):


“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

— substantivalism has engaged with you at length. It is not just my mere opinion that you change the topic, this can be verified. As for our exchange, which never even really occurred, and nor will it after observing your sophistry, I did not have the burden of proof. My activity on this Forum is certainly not that of a troll. This is all I have to say to you.

We (Sub and I) just started with some discourse. Yours and mine on the other hand (more of just a fishing expedition), only proved your bark had no bite, LOL

Be well my friend.

the so-called historical account of Jesus — 3017amen

Every once in a while you say something that I agree with and here you are correct. There is virtually no historical account of Jesus. The Bible is a work of fiction with a few historically accurate references.

I have two questions related to your claim:

1. Provide substantiating evidence to support your claim that the Christian Bible is fictitious.
2. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct it's all fiction, a. Explain its popularity in detail from a sociological, psychological, philosophical, and scientific view. b. Would your claim be considered your own subjective truth or an objective truth?

You made the claim now it's your turn. Let's see how you respond... .

No one who has read and understands the Bible even a little bit supposes it a history book. Indeed, the historicity of the Bible is only important to people to whom that is important, and that not relevant to what it is. Some parts of it might be called historical fiction; in others it's no history at all. Are parts of it set against an historical background? Of course they are, and in some places the accuracy of that background is independently verified. But the history is incidental and the important parts manifestly fictive.

At this point, anyone who wishes to know about the bible should start here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi
The first of a whole semester's worth of lectures given at Yale on the bible by Christine Hayes, and all very much worth watching. .

But beyond question is that billions of people find value in it, and for a variety of reasons. But it seems equally beyond question that none of those values, jointly or severally, correspond to or comprehend what the bible is. but rather the bible is that which contains them. It is a reader, a cornucopia of stories, advice, rules, histories (not to be confused with history), moral, ethical, and health instruction, cautionary tales, all of uneven worth, and so forth. To make either more or less of it is both to make less of it, and a failure to understand what it is. Thus to characterize it in an inappropriately qualified word or a phrase is an error, a mistake in understanding.

But most people not only are not interested in what the Bible is, but are unaware that the Bible in itself is anything in itself. Their interest, usually, is in the meaning of texts, and most usually, what they can twist the text to mean.

That is, discussions that claim to be about the bible are almost never about the bible, but instead some aspect of some matter of some text in the bible.

No one who has read and understands the Bible even a little bit supposes it a history book. — tim wood

Millions of people around the world (such as our friend 3017) consider it to be either totally or substantially true. Of course one could counter that by saying that such people do not truly "understand" it, but now we're getting into No True Scotsman territory.

Jesus to be a literary figure that may or may not have existed. — JerseyFlight

Quoting Michael Grant here:

"We can no more reject Jesus's existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."

Virtually all reputable scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. Doubting that Jesus had any divine power is acceptable, but doubting his physical and historical existence is the result of the nihilistic mentality that was born during the 19th century. If the existence of Jesus can be doubted, Siddhartha Gautama - the Buddha - himself should be already a myth...

"that may or may not have existed."

I have made the same mistake. Just try reading more carefully next time.

The reason I said, "may or may not have existed" is because I am familiar with the alternative arguments put forth by Carrier and the like, I am also familiar with Ehrman. Further, Carrier does not hold this position out of Nihilism, as you groundlessly here assert, but makes the argument on empirical grounds. I could care less if he existed.

I have made the same mistake. Just try reading more carefully next time. — JerseyFlight

I made no mistake, my dear, I can assure you of this. You who made the mistake of thinking you were talking to a person who wouldn't notice your devious speech tactics. "That it may or may not have existed", this sentence is ambiguous on purpose, so that when people like me, come to ask you about this same sentence, you have already prepared an answer without any depth on the subject and simply to end the discussion.

The reason I said, "may or may not have existed" is because I am familiar with the alternative arguments put forth by Carrier and the like, I am also familiar with Ehrman. — JerseyFlight

Here you speak as if the reader were obliged to have prior knowledge that you - as you claim to have - are aware of these arguments by Carrier and Ehrman, even though you know that you used ambiguous language in your statement.

Carrier does not hold this position out of Nihilism, as you groundlessly here assert, — JerseyFlight

At no time was it said that Carrier supports his lines on the basis of nihilism, and yes that I argued on the basis of nihilism. Try to read more carefully and in less haste to respond.

I could care less if he existed. — JerseyFlight

It is noticeable that when the argument, assumption, opinion, vision, etc ... suits you to come out on top in the discussion, you use them, but when it also suits you to disprove your previous statements, you also do it. Does it smells like "doublethink" just for me? Ah, what did I expect from someone who - here quoting you - "can be considered a contemporary version of Nietzsche"?

This image of yours of a "revolutionary humanist" and your pseudo-philosophical conversation may have worked with others, but not with me. Good day/Good night.

Millions of people around the world (such as our friend 3017) consider it to be either totally or substantially true. — EricH

Never said that. Like any account of history (book), it's fallible. To that end, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim here:

1. Provide substantiating evidence to support your claim that the Christian Bible is fictitious.
2. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct it's all fiction, a. Explain its popularity in detail from a sociological, psychological, philosophical, and scientific view. b. Would your claim be considered your own subjective truth or an objective truth?

You made the claim now it's your turn. Let's see how you respond... .

"That it may or may not have existed", this sentence is ambiguous on purpose — Gus Lamarch

You are correct. Unlike you, I am aware that there is an intricate debate here. Your claim is that I should have either confessed that Jesus existed or that he did not. I am not versed enough in this material to speak with authority on the topic, that is why I left it open.

when people like me, come to ask you about this same sentence — Gus Lamarch

This is a good idea. You should try asking me about it next time.

Here you speak as if the reader were obliged to have prior knowledge that you - as you claim to have - are aware of these arguments by Carrier and Ehrman — Gus Lamarch

Yes, if you are going to speak authoritatively as you did and simply say Jesus existed, then you should have read the relevant materials on both sides of the debate. I do not care whether or not Jesus existed, just like I do not care whether Muhammad existed. If you want to spend your time researching it you are free to do it, but I will admonish you that there are far more important things to study.

At no time was it said that Carrier supports his lines on the basis of nihilism — Gus Lamarch

Is contradicted by:

Doubting that Jesus had any divine power is acceptable, but doubting his physical and historical existence is the result of the nihilistic mentality — Gus Lamarch

Carrier does doubt that Jesus existed. What you have to do is revise your false premise.

It is noticeable that when the argument, assumption, opinion, vision, etc ... suits you to come out on top in the discussion, you use them, but when it also suits you to disprove your previous statements, you also do it. — Gus Lamarch

I do not evaluate arguments on the basis of my feelings, or whether or not the argument is favorable to my position, nor do I do it based on personal preference, I try my best to do it based on relevance. If you can show me why the topic of Jesus' existence is more important to study than say, economics, it is likely I will give my time to Jesus.

However, this is not an exchange of value because the topic is itself lacking in value. It would be advisable for you to try to focus on things that have more value.