You guys are missing the point.

How do we know hercules is either a fictional character or a legend for example?

Give me one example of something the God of the bible did that has been confirmed.

Yes, I am not surprised Christian apologetics will find a way to answer objections
showing their infallible book is fallible.

Also, I wish you would understand that my arguments are addressing how a lot of people view god. Not any particular Theologian. Many people view God this way. They think God gets angry, sad, joyful etc.. I understand there are numerous different denominations and numerous people have different ideas about God within that denomination. However, believing the flood myth and slave revolt happened is a common shared idea among many Christians. These events DID NOT take place. This is evidence that the character in the book is a legend at best. This is one of the many ways historians separate reliable stories from unreliable ones and how we know Hercules was a legend, if he existed at all.

Textual and historical analysis.

Creation is confirmed created.

And I'm not surprised ignorant people say ignorant things.

I think it's interesting how your post can be broken into two completely disjoint and logically disconnected pieces.

Part 1: Anthropomorphism of God

Part 2: Global flood

As for 1, the fact that you can disassociate theological thought from this is just a terrible demonstration of reasoning. I've given you information. You apparently haven't even bothered to read it. What does that say about your ability to engage in the content of the discussion?

As for 2, you've just repeated the same flawed analysis I just discussed. Repeating yourself doesn't increase the chances of it being a good argument.

And if you think there's some historical analysis of Hercules that looks at supposed actions Hercules did, you don't know anything about historical analyses, either. We understand it as legend because the people at the time understood it as legend.

How so?

Are you saying a lot of Christians don't view god this way???

It is a good argument if you have a reasonable standard of evidence. I mean what evidence would demonstrate to you that this God doesn't exist? What would make that a reasonable position to take in your opinion?

Are you implying the Greeks didn't believe Hercules actually existed?

Creation was not created?

I'm saying that there's an entire batch of theological concepts that are involved in this conversation.

Which God? The God that you're trying to characterize broadly as not existing because of two events that you claim didn't happen? I reject the existence of a God with the following description:

I find that such a description is not particularly meaningful, so I reject it.

I think there are many ways that it would be reasonable to adopt the position that there is no God. There are lots of reasonable people who accept the existence of God and lots of reasonable people who reject the existence of God. But the people who reasonably reject the existence of God aren't really doing it the way you're doing it.

Suppose, for a moment, that we have indisputable archaeological evidence of a global flood. Would that be sufficient reason to accept the existence of God? Almost certainly not. So this particular thing you're chasing in and of itself probably carries very little weight when it comes to the question of God's existence. This is simply NOT a linchpin of belief.

The idea of "actually existed" is probably the wrong one to use. That's a very modern question to be asking.

Did they believe in the existence of an actual person that was an actual half-man and half-God that actually performed the 12 labors as described in mythology? Nope. That's not really not how they even thought about the world around them. Such a question probably didn't really enter their minds in that particular way because it likely didn't really matter to them.

They almost certainly believed the myths were "true" in some sense, but not the sense that we would probably say. They just didn't see the world around them in quite the same terms. There are many books and articles written on this topic, and they are all quite complex. I don't claim to be even a dabbler in it, but I feel as though I know enough that asking the question the way you did is going to be selling yourself short of a meaningful answer.

If there was "indisputable" scientific evidence that there was an actual global flood approximately 3,500-4,500 years ago as described in the Bible, I think almost every agnostic would likely be converting. I'm sure there would be a good chunk of hard-core atheists that would not be swayed, but I think they would be in the minority. That being said, having "indisputable" evidence at this point would be a near impossibility, so it really isn't worth consideration. There has been no indisputable evidence for thousands of years, and no evidence that is even close.

All three of these paragraphs are all part of your very specific world-view. I understand the complexities that you are talking about, but your off-hand dismissal seems a bit self-serving.

I'm very doubtful of that. Think about all the things we can't convince people or or convince them to do with indisputable scientific evidence.

Actually, it's my best attempt to reflect the scholarly literature on the subject. People actually study ancient religions and cultures and in an attempt to understand them.

I think a good starting point is this History reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian...in_their_gods/

There are many links there to books and other scholarly resources, but (as with many reddits) it meanders a bit so you're going to have to do a little sifting.

This is a begging the question fallacy.. My question was clearly intended to ask "how do you know there was a creation?" not "why does creation require a creator?" The second question already assumes the answer.



So what? Many Christians view GOD the way I am saying so my argument applies to a lot of people...

Yep, it is common for theists to use vague definitions so they don't have to be held to any sort of evidence.


Yes, I think that would be enough to convert me to Christianity.


All the information I can find on this doesn't agree with you but whatever.. If they believed this god actually existed that would not change our mind on assuming they are myths. We know they are myths for other reasons.

That's fine. Incredulity on your side isn't an argument, either. I live in creation. Therefore, I have every piece of evidence I need to think that creation happened.

It does, but then it also doesn't. They may say "God is angry" and they may mean something like that, but if you pressed them on it, they would also likely say something like "God's anger is not like our anger." I'm just trying to show you that there's actually a much more thorough understanding that's available and has been worked out over time.

Think about this like physics. People believe in physics. They believe in electrons and gravity and probably believe in quantum mechanics. But if you challenged them on some of the finer points of those ideas, they likely will not be able to answer them in a good way. Yet you wouldn't necessarily conclude from this that physics is all screwed up because people who don't think about it that deeply get it wrong.

It's also common for people who don't know what they're talking about to make ignorant categories of information, such as the ones you've created thus far. That doesn't make it a problem for anyone in particular.

I'm doubtful this is true. You would still have to decide between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as they all take this event as part of their canonical understanding of their faith.

And if you really think that this one event would be enough to convince you to adopt Christianity, I'd really have to wonder whether you actually knew anything about Christianity.

I've provided a link. Now it's your turn.

Are you talking about the Greek myths or Christianity?

So your argument is, I am unwilling to believe something without evidence and that isn't a good argument to reject said thing? Unless of course, you have evidence?

I guess putting it like that helps me understand what you're saying. Think of it like this though, if someone who was a layman about physics tried to argue physics to you wouldn't your idea of physics (if that is the only argument you knew) sort of be a strawman to what the "experts" believed? Wouldn't you then be justified in saying the argument the layman are bringing up is false and physics doesn't exist? You can say something doesn't exist and be wrong with justification. Don't you agree?

You are confusing ignorant in general with more ignorant than you. I am fully aware you are more versed in theology than me. I would say my understanding of Christian theology is still well above average.



It would only take one extraordinary claim to be demonstrated for me to be convinced. The flood myth is impossible if the bible had it right and everyone else had it wrong I would have no choice but to re examine my position. I guess you are right, I wouldn't adopt any specific religion but I would no longer be an atheist.



What link?

Eh? That's not even close to anything.

Your question was "How do you know there was a creation?" I know there was a creation because I'm living in it. I grant that this singular observation says nothing about causes or anything like that. But it seems that it takes a great deal of incredulity to reject the claim that creation exists.

I suppose you could frame it that way. But that works only up to the point that someone tries to teach you physics. If your argument about physics is completely based in your ignorance of physics, it's going to be very hard to have a meaningful discussion of physics.

And of course you can be justified in a belief and be wrong about it. That's a pretty standard thing that is considered when discussing the nature of knowledge. The Gettier problem springs to mind as an important example of this type of consideration.

I wouldn't say that. At this point you have yet to have demonstrated in your argumentation that you understand much Christian theology. The first and biggest strike against you is your usage of the word "literal." Biblical literalism is a generally understood concept that can mean one of several things, but none of those things reflect the way you used the term "literal."

The conversation so far has revolved around a particularly fundamentalist perspective, which is not what I think one would generally take as being broadly representative of Christian theology.

I would be curious to know on what basis you claim to be above average in your knowledge of Christian theology.

This is why I don't think you would become a Christian or change your faith. If a global flood happened, there would be evidence that it happened. Why would it necessarily have to be something where the Bible is right and everyone else is wrong? And how would you ever become convinced of something if "everybody else" needs to be wrong for you to become convinced of it? Isn't it the case that if everybody else is wrong, that you would go with the everybody else?

You are welcome to this claim. But I think it's extremely unlikely to be a true one.

I liked to it for Grima:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian...in_their_gods/

The basic conclusion is that the question is incredibly complicated.

Calling it creation implies it was created by a creator, whereas calling it existence, or the universe (or 'everything') etc does not. As you most likely already know.

Also, the original question was:

"Give me one example of something the God of the bible did that has been confirmed." (I'd have quoted the comment, except when I tried to copy the comment text on my phone, it puts the original sup bro comment into my clipboard instead...weird).

Not a bad question, actually, if you don't get too focused on what 'confirmed' might mean e.g. start with what it means to you.

This is what I get when I try to quote that comment:

Old school oot. Is it some April fool from sklansky that never got undone?!

I disagree that "creation" implies "creator." I think it really just implies "created." For example, in physics, we have particle-antiparticle creation and annihilation, and there's no sense in which we have a "creator" and an "annihilator."

I'm trying to get at something with his flood example, which I got to in slightly more detail in the previous post. Suppose it's true that God did something (say, caused a global flood). There's a gap between the event being confirmed and confirming the cause of the event. That is, we may have complete and indisputable evidence that a global flood occurred. But in what sense would we ever be able to prove that God did it as opposed to some other cause?

LOL -- no clue what's going on with that.

It is a good question. But I don't think we're in a good position to get there just yet. I need to push beyond naive evidentialism.

No, I am justified in rejecting your claim of "creation" unless you can demonstrate there is a "creation". It is not incredulity because you have not presented sufficient evidence to justify your position that there is a "creation".

My argument was against a theological stance you don't take. I am addressing people who literally believe there was a worldwide flood and a slave revolt in egypt. That is apparently not you, so your positions may be different. I may just say "I remain unconvinced you're correct" rather than " I think you're wrong" The literal character of the bible is not as told. We both agree there, you think it is a lot of parables. That is fine to think that and obviously I agree that your interpretation is more likely but my argument wasn't addressed at someone who views the bible the way you do.




Literal interpretation meaning, they believe the events literally happened. I would also like to point out, you started using the term "literalist" I am the one that had to explain further who I was addressing. I never wanted to put a label on it because I understand there is a spectrum of beliefs in all branches of theology.

I disagree that the examples of belief systems I've provided are strictly fundamental, I would argue that many conservative Christians believe in the Flood myth and slave revolt as well.

The main reason I reach this conclusion is because I spend more time discussing it than your average person. My fiancee is a Christian and her dad is a pastor. I go to church around 2 times a month, read the bible and devout some time trying to understand. That is more than your average Christian does in my opinion. A lot of them just seem to agree with whatever their pastor says. Not to mention I partake and discuss in 3 different forums (4 now if you count this one) Like I said, I am not an expert, but I think I know more than the average person.

It would demonstrate the bible is a more reliable path to "truth" than the scientific method. It would show that the words in the bible understand reality better than science.




Link is broken.

I don't intend to demonstrate you exist inside of creation. I don't know in what way I can demonstrate for you that there is in fact a universe and that you're in it.

Your whole argument structure is just bad, though. I can keep going back to the George Washington argument. There are many people who believe George Washington that cut down a cherry tree and truthfully admitted to it. It is certainly established fact that George Washington did not do that. But to take this argument and try to conclude these people believe in a George Washington that doesn't exist is simply a poor argument.

It is true that I first used the word "literal." It was because you were describing a literalist position by claiming a worldwide flood as being central to your argumentation. You are running into huge conceptual issues by thinking that "literally happened" is a meaningful characterization of the viewpoints you're trying to argue against.

The distinction between conservative Christians and fundamentalist Christians is far more problematic than you realize. Many elements of conservative Christianity are grounded in fundamentalism. I don't think you're really parsing out anything new with this. But it doesn't even matter because your basic argument structure is still failing to make any reasonable points against any particular position.

(1) Being involved in discussions does not imply deeper understanding. People can discuss things they know nothing about. And they can do it for a long, long time.

(2) Understand that reading the Bible does not necessarily endow you with any sense of theology. A lot of theology also depends on what things you read *outside* of the Bible. Although many Christians claim some form of sola scriptura, that doesn't mean that they get the bulk of their theological ideas from the Bible directly, but rather indirectly.

(3) I also think you are in error that people generally just accept whatever the Pastor says. There are certainly many things where they agree with the Pastor, but they have opinions and will often be able to find things they disagree with. It's just often not worth the time to have some sort of discussion about it because it's a smaller ancillary point of little to no relevance. Also, there's a self-selection bias. If one disagrees with the Pastor a bunch, they're probably not going to stay in that church.

(4) While your pessimistic viewpoint of the amount of time Christians devote to reading their Bibles is somewhat accurate (for example, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4949993.html) and Biblical illiteracy is a problem (for example, http://www.christianitytoday.com/eds...y-numbers.html), you shouldn't assume that the average Christian is a complete theological dunce. Just because they don't study it every day does not mean that they haven't accumulated a level of experience and knowledge over the course of their life. I will grant that most people aren't particularly strong in their theology and that it's not that hard to surpass a lot of people, but to this point you haven't actually said anything to make me think you've reached that point.

No. I don't even want to start into the number of ways this is face-palmingly bad.

Sorry. I copied the text of the link and not the link itself.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorian...in_their_gods/

(But really now... you couldn't have scrolled up a couple posts and find this?)

This is still begging the question. You need to demonstrate this is a creation, not assume it is a creation and say "see you're living inside a creation" That is circular reasoning and illogical. I can just say, "you're not living in a creation, so why do you think you're living in a creation". I am asking you to demonstrate this IS A CREATION.

They believe George washington existed because we have documented events that happened with him. I am asking again for documented events yahweh took part in. The only examples we have are either exaggerated or stories (parables) This is strong evidence that something doesn't exist. This is exactly how historian rule out which characters are real and which are made up.. And that is why they know hercules doesn't exist.


actually all these things are good indication that you know more about the subject than someone who doesn't do this..

A system that can predict the future and understand the past better than science wouldn't be a good system to follow? Lol, okay.

I didn't see the link before..

When you make the claim "you're not living in a creation" what exactly are you claiming?

This is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

This is a totally different question than how your argument is constructed. I'm trying to get you to see that your basic argument is structurally flawed.

No! This is not! This is a flawed argument! I've given you an explicit example where you have to continuously deny your own logic and yet you don't see it.

No! Not at all! This looks nothing like a historical argument. There are exaggerated stories about Kim Jung Un. Exaggerated stories don't stand as evidence of a something not existing.

No. The existence of exaggerated stories is *not* how historians know that Hercules doesn't exist. This is just awful argumentation.

I know I do because I've done a lot of reading and studying. But you have yet to say or do anything that shows that *you* have an above average understanding.

If you really can't see why the structure of your argument above isn't going to work, there's no chance that you will understand why your statement is a bunch of nonsense.

Fair enough. It made me think of the thoughtful argument from philosopher Ray Comfort: "every painting has a painter, every building has a builder, every creation has a creator."

When I say there is no "creation" I am saying the universe could have came to be from natural causes. You have implied itt that by creation you mean there was some kind of intelligent agent who created everything.


You still don't understand my argument about Hercules. Again, we know Kim jung un existed because we have reliable evidence that shows there are real events he was involved in. The same thing can be said about any historical figure that has made up stories surrounding them. We have made up stories surrounding yahweh, but no confirmed events he took part in. Same can be said about Jesus really, we don't even know if he was a real historical figure (I think he was for other reasons) but you would need real events with contemporary accounts to tie yahweh to. Otherwise you are justified taking the "he didn't exist " position, when all the claims about him are extraordinary.

If all we had about Kim jung un was a couple stories about him riding unicorns and being born during a double rainbow, wouldn't you argue that guy is either a legend or a made up character?

Originally Posted by fraleyight
Give me one example of something the God of the bible did that has been confirmed.
Aaron:Creation is confirmed created.