What is strongest argument for Theism?

[EndogenousRebel]

For me I would start at the fact that all things are connected, and that humanity has an keen interest in understanding this.

From a naturalistic point of view, that is the core reason for the existence of theism.

A drop of water falls into the ocean and it seems to have no effect, but it obviously influences the whole system. The waves that ripple oscillate, and reflect and collapse.

In a sense the universe is an orchestra: matter, our bodies and minds are instruments, and we want to understand the mechanism by which it works. Are we the players or are getting played? Who is the conductor?

I'm not myself interested in the idea of a grand orchestrator of the universe (God). For me as someone who is existentially agnostic, I would prefer to propose it's more likely a federated system of "Gods" more akin to Greek/Roman pantheon, but even those had King of Gods character that YW could fill I guess.

For me it would seem that most of our reasoning that justifies theism bakes in our sapien cultural understanding of the world. That metaphor about the orchestra for example to me is very powerful, but intentionality is difficult to nail down for theists.

Then again, if the world exists for no reason, with no intention, there where does intention come from? Could it be that God is intentionality itself? This to me is the most compelling idea for theism. It doesn't appeal to ignorance. This new age of AI is gonna put that idea to the test. When the world, which is so complicated is queried with the help of super intelligence, we may get a good look at existence and understand the divine, and if it exists even.

 

[Black Rose]

I would call it a deeper connection than linear causality.

Deeper than everyday normalcy.

Awe and wonder.

Those connect.

-

 

[Old Things]

Interesting post OP, even if you are not saying you believe in God, you are still willing to entertain the thought.

I'm not myself interested in the idea of a grand orchestrator of the universe (God). For me as someone who is existentially agnostic, I would prefer to propose it's more likely a federated system of "Gods" more akin to Greek/Roman pantheon, but even those had King of Gods character that YW could fill I guess.

This is really interesting because there does exist a theology in Christianity about precisely this.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

There's various historical interpretations for how these religions evolved. Hermes, the messenger and god of commerce for example is one that Christianity adopted, though of course making him less divine. Cupid is another one that was appropriated into an angel.

The idea is that as massive conversions happened, such as in Rome, you want the populace to accept the new religion, so you interject the already established religion.

 

[Old Things]

There's various historical interpretations for how these religions evolved. Hermes, the messenger and god of commerce for example is one that Christianity adopted, though of course making him less divine. Cupid is another one that was appropriated into an angel.

The idea is that as massive conversions happened, such as in Rome, you want the populace to accept the new religion, so you interject the already established religion.

Correlation is not causation.

I'd also suggest you reread this thread I made so you realize that it's not just based on myth, but facts.

https://www.intpforum.com/threads/evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ.29113/

 

[EndogenousRebel]

There's various historical interpretations for how these religions evolved. Hermes, the messenger and god of commerce for example is one that Christianity adopted, though of course making him less divine. Cupid is another one that was appropriated into an angel.

The idea is that as massive conversions happened, such as in Rome, you want the populace to accept the new religion, so you interject the already established religion.

Correlation is not causation.

I'd also suggest you reread this thread I made so you realize that it's not just based on myth, but facts.

https://www.intpforum.com/threads/evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ.29113/

At some point you have to accept that most of these scriptures were written long after Jesus was alive. That's a long time of oral tradition and telephone game.

His influence is undeniable, but there is nothing we can even quote verbatim from that era. If you can tell me that this thread contains information that doesn't contradict this, I will gladly look into it.

 

[dr froyd]

the best argument for me would be that science cannot really explain the existence of the universe. It can tell us things about what happened after the big bang, what the values of certain physical constants are etc, but how it happened and why in this exact form, nobody can tell.

but i also believe that if there are some super-beings that produced the big bang somehow, they will not be too impressed with the insipidly human product that is theistic religion as we know it

 

[dr froyd]

lol my own posts make me laugh sometimes

the minimal fact appears to be that a bunch of ppl claimed they saw something supernatural

i believe this is evidence of people being monkeys, not the resurrection of jesus christ

 

[Old Things]

@EndogenousRebel, I am not really sure what the point of the video is. I am about 12 minutes in and haven't heard anything new yet.

That's a long time of oral tradition and telephone game.

Then you can throw out the majority of ancient history.

 

[Old Things]

lol my own posts make me laugh sometimes

the minimal fact appears to be that a bunch of ppl claimed they saw something supernatural

i believe this is evidence of people being monkeys, not the resurrection of jesus christ

I mean, that is an extremely crude and reductionistic view of what happened historically, but you do you.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

@EndogenousRebel, I am not really sure what the point of the video is. I am about 12 minutes in and haven't heard anything new yet.

That's a long time of oral tradition and telephone game.

Then you can throw out the majority of ancient history.

There is nothing new is what I am saying.

A little over halfway through there is the introduction of Josephus who committed themselves to being unbiased, and they themselves do not outright corroborate resurrection, despite they themselves being a believer.

I'm not quite sure what your point was to begin with I suppose. You mean to say that people witnessed the supernatural back then. I could easily bring up counterfactual reasoning that explains verbal testimony.

The video is interesting I think, and makes a good point that if the bible is merely propaganda for a socio-political agenda, that it would be different, so it's interesting that the new testment is not this. Of course I could also bring counterfactual reasoning to that as well.

Ancient history is interesting to speculate about.

 

[Old Things]

A little over halfway through there is the introduction of Josephus who committed themselves to being unbiased, and they themselves do not outright corroborate resurrection, despite they themselves being a believer.

Anyone writing history or writing about history will be biased in one way, shape, or form as @ZenRaiden would tell you. They are right about that.

 

[dr froyd]

I mean, that is an extremely crude and reductionistic view of what happened historically, but you do you.

there's no such thing as historical fact, only historical conjecture.

for example did socrates exist? or was he just a fictional creation by plato? most likely there was a guy called socrates, but we're not sure, and we're not sure whether most of his teachings actually came from him or plato.

 

[Old Things]

I mean, that is an extremely crude and reductionistic view of what happened historically, but you do you.

there's no such thing as historical fact, only historical conjecture.

for example did socrates exist? or was he just a fictional creation by plato? most likely there was a guy called socrates, but we're not sure, and we're not sure whether most of his teachings actually came from him or plato.

Things are graded based on how likely they are to have happened. It's not like we know nothing about the ancient world.

 

[SteppeWanderer]

I would call it a deeper connection than linear causality.

Deeper than everyday normalcy.

Awe and wonder.

Those connect.

-

Is that poop on the beach?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

A little over halfway through there is the introduction of Josephus who committed themselves to being unbiased, and they themselves do not outright corroborate resurrection, despite they themselves being a believer.

Anyone writing history or writing about history will be biased in one way, shape, or form as @ZenRaiden would tell you. They are right about that.

But I certainly say someone who is attempting to be historically accurate is the same as someone who is not. in this context, historians have placed their faith in someone who is they usually wouldn't, but the have put their doubts aside because of their language.

The guy they are saying is a reliable source is probably a proto-christian, and he himself doesn't try to imply that Jesus resurection is a fact within 50 years of it happening.

but i also believe that if there are some super-beings that produced the big bang somehow, they will not be too impressed with the insipidly human product that is theistic religion as we know it

I don't know if you meant to but I think that hits the nail on the head. If humans created theism as a contingency plan against actual nigh-omnipotent beings thinking we are a useless appendage of existence, I don't think it's such a bad plan. We are showing that we are willing to do some pretty fucked up things for potentially imaginary dieties, imagine if they were real.

 

[Old Things]

But I certainly say someone who is attempting to be historically accurate is the same as someone who is not. in this context, historians have placed their faith in someone who is they usually wouldn't, but the have put their doubts aside because of their language.

The guy they are saying is a reliable source is probably a proto-christian, and he himself doesn't try to imply that Jesus resurection is a fact within 50 years of it happening.

Scholars like "Logically sounding" stuff. That is why they like the Apostle Paul. In the end, the arguments themselves do not convince anyone of anything. Humans are biased to their core and many people are resistant towards believing Christ rose from the dead for a variety of reasons. None of those reasons, however, are without bias.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

But I certainly say someone who is attempting to be historically accurate is the same as someone who is not. in this context, historians have placed their faith in someone who is they usually wouldn't, but the have put their doubts aside because of their language.

The guy they are saying is a reliable source is probably a proto-christian, and he himself doesn't try to imply that Jesus resurection is a fact within 50 years of it happening.

Scholars like "Logically sounding" stuff. That is why they like the Apostle Paul. In the end, the arguments themselves do not convince anyone of anything. Humans are biased to their core and many people are resistant towards believing Christ rose from the dead for a variety of reasons. None of those reasons, however, are without bias.

See I can acknowledge the statements your writing. Human are biased.

Thats a statement about quality of information that we can convey. What use does acknowledging that have in this situation?

In a wartime situation it can make us double check and confirm this information. We don't want to act on bad sources

Here it's like.. this is the best we got. I don't know what you want from this conversation

 

[Old Things]

Thats a statement about quality of information that we can convey. What use does acknowledging that have in this situation?

In a wartime situation it can make us double check and confirm this information. We don't want to act on bad sources

Here it's like.. this is the best we got. I don't know what you want from this conversation

I honestly do not understand what you are saying here. I read it twice. Still don't understand.

 

[Black Rose]

We could say that there is a parable.

Imagine you meet a person,

and this person turns out to be Jesus in disguise.

what would it mean if you treated them poorly?

at any moment Jesus could appear to you.

as any person.

how will you treat them?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Thats a statement about quality of information that we can convey. What use does acknowledging that have in this situation?

In a wartime situation it can make us double check and confirm this information. We don't want to act on bad sources

Here it's like.. this is the best we got. I don't know what you want from this conversation

I honestly do not understand what you are saying here. I read it twice. Still don't understand.

I'm trying to see if you're just preaching or if what you're saying actually applies to this specific situation. I can't see how the latter is all that helpful in this situation. It is redundant.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

We could say that there is a parable.

Imagine you meet a person,

and this person turns out to be Jesus in disguise.

what would it mean if you treated them poorly?

at any moment Jesus could appear to you.

as any person.

how will you treat them?

The golden rule

 

[Old Things]

Thats a statement about quality of information that we can convey. What use does acknowledging that have in this situation?

In a wartime situation it can make us double check and confirm this information. We don't want to act on bad sources

Here it's like.. this is the best we got. I don't know what you want from this conversation

I honestly do not understand what you are saying here. I read it twice. Still don't understand.

I'm trying to see if you're just preaching or if what you're saying actually applies to this specific situation. I can't see how the latter is all that helpful in this situation. It is redundant.

The minimal facts do not rely on myth accounts. That is why I posted my thread again.

 

[Black Rose]

So Jesus only told a few people he was alive and then went away.

That seems very selective.

I mean some people have seen Jesus later on,

so everyone else is in the dark.

what could be going on?

 

[Old Things]

what could be going on?

John 20:29
"Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”"

Jesus seems to elevate anyone who is unfortunate in some way (if faithful to Christ) either in this life or the next.

 

[Black Rose]

That should mean that everyone knows.

why not just let everyone know?

 

[Old Things]

That should mean that everyone knows.

why not just let everyone know?

Everyone has access to the world which is repute with God's glory showing his handiwork.

 

[Black Rose]

Does that make the bible redundant?

 

[Old Things]

Does that make the bible redundant?

No. That is just general revelation. Not special revelation.

 

[Black Rose]

I read the New Testament.

So it told me that Jesus exists and he is alive.

And I remember that the resurrection happens.

I do not see anything else that could be about what I specifically should be doing.

Besides praying and helping people.

 

[Old Things]

I do not see anything else that could be about what I specifically should be doing.

Besides praying and helping people.

Use your giftings to help others. That can occupy all your time plus a lot more time.

 

[Black Rose]

ok,

but as to the economy at large,

You do not see that people already, 95%, do not need to read the bible.

95% of what people do is already just people doing economics that support the system. capitalism does what needs to be done or everything would collapse.

is this God's plan?

because that is what it seems like until oil runs out and even then we just need to make machines that get oil from the air only to do transportation.

my point? capitalism does 95% of the job that needs to be done that the bible does not need do.

 

[Black Rose]

People need social workers to help them is proof God exists?

 

[ZenRaiden]

there's no such thing as historical fact, only historical conjecture.

That is true. In fact we mostly operate on conjecture.
We take some idea of reality and create a model of reality that fits our needs.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I can open a public court case from the state and claim it's historical conjecture. How do I know any of it is real?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I can open a public court case from the state and claim it's historical conjecture. How do I know any of it is real?

Hyperbolic sarcasm might not land, but you have to understand that even fabrications have a source. That source has intention, whether in good faith or bad. We can still ask questions about that.

Reality for humans is a cobweb of "facts" and assumptions. Our sense of what is true or not and our confidence in that sense should be based on context. It's literally the best we can do. Validate information with information. Might not like it, but whos to say that we understand the present better than the past, since our time to study the past easily outnumbers the present.

This ties into my argument about theism above, but I don't know if the conversation is still there at this point.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

there's no such thing as historical fact, only historical conjecture.

bingo

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What is strongest argument for Theism?

ETHICA ORDINE GEOMETRICO DEMONSTRATA

 

[Old Things]

my point? capitalism does 95% of the job that needs to be done that the bible does not need do.

Working a job does not give purpose ipso facto. Why should you work a job? Further, this is not really a capitalist thing. People from every nation have jobs to support themselves many of whom do not live in a capitalist economy.

 

[Old Things]

there's no such thing as historical fact, only historical conjecture.

That is true. In fact we mostly operate on conjecture.
We take some idea of reality and create a model of reality that fits our needs.

I mean it's not really conjecture that Jesus was a real person. That's what the video @EndogenousRebel posted was about. Historical things are graded on the likelihood that they happened. Some are almost certain (while not being totally certain). And it goes down from there.

 

[Black Rose]

my point? capitalism does 95% of the job that needs to be done that the bible does not need do.

Working a job does not give purpose ipso facto. Why should you work a job? Further, this is not really a capitalist thing. People from every nation have jobs to support themselves many of whom do not live in a capitalist economy.

if helping people is the purpose of life,

why would God allow capitalism to take up 95% of that job?

the meaning of life is not the same as the purpose is it?

meaning is about feeling that things are supposed to be as they are.

and if no one needed help then there would be no purpose to life?

 

[Old Things]

my point? capitalism does 95% of the job that needs to be done that the bible does not need do.

Working a job does not give purpose ipso facto. Why should you work a job? Further, this is not really a capitalist thing. People from every nation have jobs to support themselves many of whom do not live in a capitalist economy.

if helping people is the purpose of life,

why would God allow capitalism to take up 95% of that job?

the meaning of life is not the same as the purpose is it?

meaning is about feeling that things are supposed to be as they are.

and if no one needed help then there would be no purpose to life?

Capitalism is a rather new thing for humanity. I think it is a good thing. So you saying that Capitalism is this big bad boogie man doesn't do much for me, personally.

You sorta sound like a whiny person: "But Capitalism so therefore no purpose." That is what I am hearing anyways.

 

[Black Rose]

my point? capitalism does 95% of the job that needs to be done that the bible does not need do.

Working a job does not give purpose ipso facto. Why should you work a job? Further, this is not really a capitalist thing. People from every nation have jobs to support themselves many of whom do not live in a capitalist economy.

if helping people is the purpose of life,

why would God allow capitalism to take up 95% of that job?

the meaning of life is not the same as the purpose is it?

meaning is about feeling that things are supposed to be as they are.

and if no one needed help then there would be no purpose to life?

Capitalism is a rather new thing for humanity. I think it is a good thing. So you saying that Capitalism is this big bad boogie man doesn't do much for me, personally.

You sorta sound like a whiny person: "But Capitalism so therefore no purpose." That is what I am hearing anyways.

you want me to help people.

why?

because it gives meaning and purpose to life

So that is what God wants me to do, but God does not want 95% of people to have that also?

 

[Old Things]

So that is what God wants me to do, but God does not want 95% of people to have that also?

Why do you think it is a choice between capitalism and helping people?

 

[Black Rose]

So that is what God wants me to do, but God does not want 95% of people to have that also?

Why do you think it is a choice between capitalism and helping people?

you are trying to get me to do something in this line of reasoning.

I do not see why?

God would tell me what to do, not you necessarily.

 

[Old Things]

God would tell me what to do, not you necessarily.

You can read the Bible and get the same answer. What is the purpose of our gifts if not to help people with them?

 

[Black Rose]

God would tell me what to do, not you necessarily.

You can read the Bible and get the same answer. What is the purpose of our gifts if not to help people with them?

I am thinking of the larger picture.

why do people not just naturally help each other?

why would they need to be told to do so?

and if they need to be told why not direct revelation from God?

God could say, Jim or to anyone, help people in a voice from Havean/sky?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

and if they need to be told why not direct revelation from God?

exactly, maybe send a talking donkey

 

[Old Things]

why do people not just naturally help each other?

They don't most the time.

why would they need to be told to do so?

Because they don't most the time.

and if they need to be told why not direct revelation from God?

Because God chooses to work though other people most the time.

God could say, Jim or to anyone, help people in a voice from Havean/sky?

Of course He could. He doesn't though. That is why the Great Commission is important. It is our responsibility to spread the message.

 

[Black Rose]

Demonstrating that God exists by our actions,

can prove to some people God exists.

but to others, they require more than this.

people do not change easily

because of their experiences in life