I'm calling BS on Eusebis. The story might be that such a guy existed and that he wrote a lot of stuff about Christianity. The odds of any of it survivng from that time period as a collection is about 0.0000000000000. Religious fairy tales always try to anchor their fables to some guys who wrote a lot of stuff in the ancient past. It tends to give them credibility. But you will never, ever, see any actual documents that such people supposedly wrote. It's just an elaborate con game created to sell the fairy tale.
You did not give reasons why you would "disagree with Jesus". That would be the interesting part. So why would you "disagree with Jesus"? Just finish your statement.
I think there is some actual parchment somewhere. One interesting thing about Eusebius is we have two accounts from him on the "Constantine has a vision of the Cross" and then wins the battle story. In the first account there is no vision. The second account - written later - contains the story. Regardless of what we have or do not have from Eusebius. The dude is writing 300 years after the death of Jesus. The story above has Eusebius engaging in artistic license (Pious Fraud). Eusebius initially refused to sign off on the "Trinity" doctrine dictated to the Clergy by Constantine. He was exiled for this. He quickly had a change of heart, signed off on "Jesus is God/God of Abraham" and was back in good standing. Lots of political intrigue. The Church was still divided over the Trinity doctrine for centuries after. Eusebius recounts how Revelations was thought to be spurious. Either way - Pious fraud was an acceptable practice for 300 years prior to any of the info coming the way of Eusebius. Apparently he had access to the library of Origen which was quite comprehensive. In terms of the Gospels - we see Pious fraud as early as the writing of Matt who uses Mark as a source document, using it in it's entirety except some passages that the author thought were derogatory to Jesus. As late as 95-100 AD the leader of the Church (Clement) does not know any of the Physical Resurrection stories - Jesus wandering around the in the flesh after death. In the stories we have today we see a continuous evolution of the divinity of Jesus from Mark through John. 65-120 AD. After that it still takes 200 years for Jesus to become "GOD"/God of Abraham. Almost none of the early Church Fathers thought this and none of the really early ones. Tertullian (who was not really a genuine Church Father for all kinds of reasons) was the first to coin the modern Trinity Doctrine around 200 BC. At the time the Church declared this doctrine heresy. The Church has something to hide - that is why they went on a destruction of knowledge rampage - especially anything that contradicted or conflicted with Church Dogma. We have found some earlier Gospels/writings that were not included in the Bible. Google Nag Hammadi - stuff that the Church missed. This paints a different picture than the one the Bible tells. One thing that is a certainty is that what folks believe today has little in common with the beliefs of the disciples.
Why is that the interesting part? I disagree with pretty much everyone in one way or another. I can be friends with them nonetheless. Scripture is quite unclear on a lot of places. I believe that I disagree with a bunch of the ideas of Jesus being the light and the way, at least in any useful way. I don't believe he was "sent by the father" and so on. Basically, I'm pretty confident that I disagree with him on most cosmological and theological points, although the lack of clarity sometimes makes it hard to specify. The same goes for many moral, epistemological and social points, and so on.
Well Jesus said that the only way to learn if his teachings were truthful or not was to try them out. If you don't try them out you will never know. I disagree with Jesus on very few points -- only one or two here or there. For example, you must always think about tomorrow otherwise you will starve and die and no Jesus is going to save you. And also, you should not love you enemies you should kill them before they kill you. But those are all just finer points not major issues. There can be little doubt that Jesus' Father sent him. He ended up changing the world as we know it. Not without significant help from Constantine and St. Paul however. But this is just a methodology issue. Seems like if you read Aquinas' 5 proofs of God you would know there is a God. And if you try Jesus' ways then you would know Jesus is the Son Of God.
Well, I guess I disagree with him on that too. I think you can compare them to reality without accepting them. If an aboriginal shaman told you that the only way for you to understand the truth was to adopt his way of life (and believers from thousands of faiths made the same argument at the same time) would you follow that advice any more? It is not enough for an idea to be internally consistent. From the inside, any religion makes sense. I don't see why there couldn't be doubt about that. Changing the world isn't a good measure of an idea. Communism, nationalism, imperialism and many other concepts have changed the world profoundly. Doesn't mean it's true, doesn't mean it's good. I recently posted a point by point refutation/comment of them on this forum, but I find the topic interesting, so I'll revisit it. The first two arguments are basically the same, and frankly, I find them convincing, to a point. The last line of both arguments reads "This everyone understands to be God". Many non-religious would disagree and since the argument relies not only on "this" being God, but everyone understanding that it is God, that's a pretty damning point. It's a linguistic point more than a theological one though. Because of this issue, one of the first approaches I had to theology was getting people to tell me what the word/name God means, i.e. the definition of God. However, when asked, most people just gave descriptions of God instead of definitions. Anyway, the first two arguments are decent arguments for the existence of something that some might call God. The Deistic God. It gives no indication that God is personal, almighty (or mighty enough to do anything other than create the world). It is only a small part of the God whose existence is argued by most Christians. In particular, the argument does not show that "God" has to be a being. The third argument, that of contingency, is not convincing. Quantum physics shows us contingent objects or processes do not need to be products of necessary ones. There are processes, such as the decay of particles, which are spontaneous, and do not rely on so called hidden variables. This in itself doesn't provide a method by which the universe was created (yet?), but it does show that "changing things need to be products of necessary things" is not necessarily true. The fourth argument, the one of degree, is more easily refuted. The entire argument is based on an equivocation of the word exist. It says that for every feature, there must exist an entity which possesses that feature perfectly. Of course, this is just not true. Imagine the feature of being like an easily detected orange in front of me. The argument states that there then must be an object for which this is perfectly true, i.e. a detectible orange in front of me. Such an orange does not exist, disproving the statement. The confusion comes from the fact that some things can be said to exist in another way. There exists an integer which is between 3 and 5, but that does not mean we can go and find the essence of 4 somewhere in the universe. In that sense, every imaginable (and unimaginable) concept exists, but it also doesn't exist physically, making the entire concept practically meaningless when it comes to God. In a sense, the third and fourth argument can also be resolved like the first two. We are invited to say that the objects that they prove are God. However, it is so different from the concepts of God that are argued in churches or the Bible, or used in arguments of Christology or the like, that it becomes meaningless. It's a bit like naming your dog "God" and using that as an argument for the existence of God. The fifth argument, the one from design, is mostly refuted by evolution. As you know, the design Aquinas sees is exclusively in things that are subject to evolution or are created by beings that are subject to evolution. What's the most "designed" system which is not subject to natural selection? In an earlier thread on the topic, someone suggested crystals, which of course is much much less complex than humans and basically anything evolution has formed.
@Swensson you cannot logically use Theism (the Bible) to refute Deism (the pure human concept of Godhood as a necessary logical precursor to creation, existence, and motion). Deism is a philosophy and is completely independent of anything else especially independent of Theism. What you tried to do is have your cake and eat it too. So your logic is mere Sophistry on these points. If you are sincere I am happy to continue a dialogue with you. However if you are just another Satanic Sophist then confess it so I can save us both more trouble and just put you on my iggy.
I'm a bit confused as to where you are going. When the thread started, it was about Jesus and his views. When I responded to it, you reverted to the arguments of Aquinas, which defend nothing more than Deism. Jesus' ideas are not defended by those arguments. Even the existence or idea of a Christ is decoupled from Aquinas' arguments. I would say most of Aquinas' points are more or less sophistry as well. However, I believe that if they are indeed fallacious, one should be able to pin point the fallacy, so that's what I've attempted. I'm happy to continue as well. I've spent enough time on the posts to show that I'm not just trolling. These are interesting and important issues. I'm not sure where your line for Satanic Sophist goes, and if I am one, I think that would be better addressed with arguments.
Eusebius was a real person. There is no doubt of his historical reality. What you @The Wyrd of Gawd are trying to do is called extreme skepticism and it invokes the necessity to prove a nonprovable. This is sophistry. Goodbye @The Wyrd of Gawd . You are moving onto my iggy list. But not because you are a brilliant skeptic. It's because you are a satanic Sophist.
Sorry but you lost me then, @Swensson . I was just more curious about the things about Jesus and his sayings and philosophy that you specifically disagreed with. I did mention mine, specifically, in follow up.
Well Jesus did claim to be Son of the Father and also sent by Him as well. You can believe Jesus or doubt him. It was a radical claim at the time and it is why the Jewish Sanhedrin at Jerusalem conspired to murder him. If you read the Greek version in Greek, the story makes a bit more sense than the English translations do. But if that's all you disagree with then you are just disagreeing with the validity of Christianity in general, but not specifically for any particular reason, right? That makes sense, right? In other words, you disagree because you disagree, but other than disagreeing you give no particular reason for disagreeing, n'est pas? A circular argument, n'est pas?
Well @Swensson you seem to have thought these counter-views through fairly well, so your own philosophizing is as valid as that of any other modern philosopher. To me you sound a lot like Bertrand Russell. The thing I do not agree with you and with Russell about are that normal philosophical dialectic is no more valid than Aquinas' dialectic. So I would call this a tie between the two opposing views. I myself appreciate Aquinas more than you and Russell do. The first proof is much like Aristotle's Prime Mover regarding the objects in the sky, but also added to it by Aquinas is change in general as considered to be "movement". The second proof addresses creation out of nothingness. The Big Bang cannot be used to justify itself, is it only a modern explanation of HOW creation occurred, not why or by whom. Similarly evolution is only an explanation of HOW not why. The third proof simply appeals for an imperishable Being similar to the first. The fourth proof appeals to the idea of an ultimate Goodness. This is similar to Descartes' entire argument for God. I agree that it is like the unicorn argument. But intuitively it has some merit. The fifth proof refers to order and design. Inherent in this proof is also aesthetics. It identifies the Prime Mover and the First Cause and the Unchangeable Being and the Ultimate Good as also AN ARTIST who is very creative. It is thus and additional independent argument from the other 4. These 5 proofs are like examining Someone's footprints and thus hypothesizing that if there are footprints there must be Someone making them. N'est pas? These proofs are proofs of "the Father" in Christianity. The next step from there is to understand the story of the birth of Christ -- His Son. Why would a single lonely God whom we have now proven to exist through Aquinas' 5 ways proceed to produce a family of his own? I think the answer to that question is obvious and it also explains nicely everything else in the Universe. But not everyone appreciates Aquinas' 5 proofs. I get that, from you, and from Russell. Russell was biased however. I hope you @Swensson are not biased like Russell.
Which would expose you as unable to back up your claims, which is called fabrication. I am amused that you think anyone would be hurt by you ignoring them. Not a punishment, more like a reward.
Sorry for taking a bit of time responding. Primarily, I disagree with the believability of Christianity. I'm sure I also disagree with other things, but they are secondary. Most importantly, all the other ideas rely on the believability of Christianity as a whole, so when I try to assess other points, I keep coming back to the believability of Christianity. I don't think that counts as disagreeing because I disagree, or if it does, it's not in itself circular. I don't have so much of a problem with Aquinas' arguments in themselves. However, I don't see that they speak for Christianity any more than they would Islam or Hinduism or Deism or even some forms of atheism, as long as that form of atheism thinks these things exist and just don't call them God. It is quite possible to be convinced that Aquinas' arguments (1-3) prove the existence of something like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It allows for variations in movement and energy to occur spontaneously, from which movement, the universe and so on can be derived (of course, I don't propose that it is so, I just wanted to show that there is still a lot to add to Aquinas' arguments to get to God in any traditional sense). It seems Aquinas would have to conclude that it is God. A deist might agree, an atheist probably wouldn't. I have some other comments as well. It can be true that the Big Bang is merely an explanation of how, but we have no reason to believe that everything needs an explicit why, in the sense you seem to use the word. For instance, radioactive decays are spontaneous, they do not rely on hidden variables. This seems to me to indicate that arguments that rely on the idea that nothing can happen without a trigger is simply false. Of course, the exact process is very different from that of radioactive decays, they just prove the principle of triggers violable. For the third proof, you mention a "being". Can you explain what you use that word to mean, and how it relates to the arguments? In my head, beings are at least a bit complicated. Explanations like the uncertainty principle seem more intuitive, and less contrived than a Biblical God. Not sure whether you would call it a being, so I'm suspicious of your adding that word to the mix. The fourth proof, you seem to reject as well, so no problem. For the fifth, I still view this as resolved by evolution and similar selective processes. Precision only exists in animals and plants, as well as systems that have been created by animals or plants. As such, they can be explained by evolution and don't require a god. Similarly, only humans and maybe animals/plants can appreciate aesthetics, and again, they are explainable through evolution. An argument is not a proof if the evidence can be produced through some other means. I don't at all see what's so obvious about God's interest in creating a "family". Most reasons I could think of would be based in imposing human thoughts and emotions on God, which seems sneaky if by God we mean something like the uncertainty principle or a Deist God. And maybe most importantly, it is not enough to show that the world makes sense within your world view. If that was enough, then Christianity is on the same tier as any other religion. Yes, Christianity can explain humans, but so can Hinduism or Taoism or even naturalism.
Aquinas was not talking about Christianity specifically with his 5 proofs. He was talking about Philosophy not about Religion.
Well I mentioned that because most people confuse Deism with Theism and Jesus' philosophy with Jesus' religious teachings/dogma as well. These same people (you included) then proceed to switch back and forth between those Deistic and Theistic issues to try and cast doubt on both. That's rhetoric not logic. You can fool idiots that way but not philosophers. I am saying you need to separate the issues. If you don't like Jesus then there are still a dozen other major world religions you can deal with. But just because you don't like Jesus does not logically also mean you can justify rejecting God as well. God is God and Jesus is Jesus. Do I make more sense now or am I still confusing to you ??
I think I have been clear on what I reject and defend, and I intended to keep the issues separate, which is why I didn't bring up Aquinas at all. My main issue with Christianity is its reliability. It seems to me that if you accept a position and then assess whether it's true, you will have a biased view. For instance, you seem to think that the fact that Christianity explains humans is an argument in favour of Christianity, when obviously, all religions (as well as non-religious alternatives) can do so too. Indeed, this is an argument that Russell makes, but I think this approach is less biased than the one you present. What is the bias in this which you talk about? It seems to me Russell doesn't talk about what is true, he talks about what we are justified in believing. In a sense, I can see how that is a bias against hard-to-prove statements, but I think that is a valid stance, lest we believe all kinds of things which are hard to prove because they are false.
1. Atomic structure 2. The universe 3. Physical laws 4. Physical constants, particularly as described in the Anthropic Principle 5. The profound correspondence of nature, cycles, beauty, thought, elegance, joy Faith is an indispensable component of science, for all scientists have faith in the consistency, the purposefulness, the beauty of immutable natural law. Atheists display a very irrational faith - a faith in nothing. Nothing made everything, and nothing made everything so very nicely that only the very smartest people believe in nothing. They say. Angrily. Condescendingly. Unrelentingly.
What would you expect undesigned atomic structure to look like? Well, I don't know that scientists at all rely on the purposefulness or beauty of natural law. As for its consistency, science at no point denies the possibility of changing natural laws. However, the explicit statements to that effect are often buried in several sets of references and don't make the headlines until we've found any evidence that they do change. I haven't found that to be the case, it seems to me they don't say "nothing", just "whatever it is, it isn't God in any traditional sense". However, this is disputed even among the non-religious (both the statements themselves and the words used to describe them) so don't take my word for it.
One more time for all the slower participants in class: An atheist believes in no god. That is it, without regard to all of the assigned beliefs other want to attribute to us. The anger, condensation presented is put forth by those who cannot grasp a simple fact. Try to comprehend.
