Socrates Faith in God the Creator in Socrates Own Words

[amrchaos]

You do know that Socrates was most likely an Hellenic, right?

Not Jewish--but greek, yes?

There is a big difference in religious perspective here that you just discounted.

 

[Unkotare]

What we know of Socrates comes from Plato's Republic....

...and Xenophon, and Aristophanes...


...and you're an idiot.

But all we have are second hand accounts. Where's the actual evidence, guy?

Kind of like Jesus. We have all these accounts, some contradict each other, but where's the first hand documentation?

"yeah but, yeah but"...

When you build your time machine you can go ask for a long-form birth certificate from every historical figure you want. Oh wait, you will never create anything in your pointless brutish life because you are nothing but a hateful little nobody who lives to take orders and fill a chair for a few years.

 

[JimBowie1958]

and?

...and?

Socrates believed in a Creator God who existed prior to the universe that He created, similar to the Jewish concept of God as Creator and not merely some tribal deity.

What this demonstrates is the rational quality of the concept of God and that such concepts do not have to come by revelation but can also be understood by the simple use of reason.

All this demonstrates is that people are inclined towards explanation, ..

What an amazingly arrogant and conceited thing to say. We disagree with your conclusion, so it must all be due to something irrational, like a preference for explanation? Except that you completely ignore the fact that a great many converts to the Abrahamic faiths did not want to convert at all, but honesty forced them to follow the dictates of their conscience and respect the apparent Truth.

What gives you the moral or intelectual superiority to so condescendingly dismiss the beliefs of billions of people throughout history?

and when there is no methodology for ascertaining answers to big questions (ie.. science, big bang cosmology), god is an easy fix to eliminate cognitive dissonance.

It is interesting to read heathen trying to disprove God's existence by showing other benefits of His existance that do not require Him to actually exist, as though asserting that because infrared light is warm and we would want to believe that there is this source of warmth, we merely believe it because we wish it, never mind all the actual evidence for infrared light.

Belief in the supernatural has been around as long as man (apx. 200,000 years).

As has belief in how to make fire, how to hunt prey, belief in the eventual return of summer after a cold winter, etc, so what?

God is an easy conclusion for a species who are able to pose big, troubling questions without any methodology to for answering it.

Ah, the old 'God-of-the-Gaps cannot exist' bullshit. Simply because God is used as a childish crutch by some people does not mean that He is simply a childhood bed time story any more than the Illiad was.

That doesn't make it true, whatsoever.

No duh, Sherlock.

Attempting to do so by asserting God as a causal explanation for natural phenomena is one big argument from ignorance, a favorite among theists. "I can't think of any better explanation, therefore: God."

No, it is not an argument in the first place it is merely an explanation of the 'I dunno how that fuel injector works, but GM made it that way' variety, implying that there must be a reason for its design.

That's a logical fallacy.

No, it is not an attempt at logic, therefore it cannot be a logical fallacy.

To say 'I like ice cream' is not a logical fallacy simply because it is not logical, when it was never intended to be understood as logic in the first place.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You do know that Socrates was most likely an Hellenic, right?

Not Jewish--but greek, yes?

There is a big difference in religious perspective here that you just discounted.

Not sure who you are responding to, but I know who Socrates was and that he was greek.

The common concepts, some based on revelation while the other is based on reason alone is part of my point.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Here's an interesting article that discusses the question of whether Socrates was a literary device or not.

Was Socrates man or myth? Applying historical Jesus criteria to Socrates « Vridar

Another arrogant ass who thinks that because he cannot fathom the plausibility of things attributed to Christ, Socrates might be real but Christ is not.

What fucking stupid circular logic.

Were we to go back and describe the life of Neil ARmstrong to a 18th century fucktard of similar bent, he would make the same case that Armstrongs exploits are not coherent or plausible.

The only reason that some morons assert that Jesus did not live is that that belief implies things that they would rather not have to accept.

But their own degeneracy makes quite plain their delusions and arrogant ignorance.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What we know of Socrates comes from Plato's Republic....

...and Xenophon, and Aristophanes...


...and you're an idiot.

But all we have are second hand accounts. Where's the actual evidence, guy?

Almost ALL of history is composed of second and third hand accounts, dumbass.

Kind of like Jesus. We have all these accounts, some contradict each other, but where's the first hand documentation?

Oh, you mean like the Gospel of John, or Luke, or Matthew?

But they cant be real since that would make plain what a stupid proposition you assert.

 

[Avatar4321]

No. You're right. There isnt a God because I want there to be. God is there whether I want Him to be or not. He's there whether you want Him to be or not. Faith or lack thereof doesnt establish or eliminate God's existence.

I know there is a God because of personal experience. I sought the Lord and He revealed Himself to me through His Holy Spirit. I didn't know whether there really was a God when I started seeking. I didnt know how or in what way He could or would let me know if He was there. But when I learned it, I realized it was true and I could not deny it. I knew that when the Lord revealed the truth to me, I needed to change my life and live the Truth He was teaching me and not just drift in life.

I would be a totally different person if God hadnt acted in my life. I can point to the very moment where I learned the Truth, and it completely changed the path I was on.

You may doubt. I understand, I did once too. You may not believe. After all, these are my experiences, not yours. But it doesnt change the fact that I am telling the truth about my experiences. You can mock, belittle, deny, and I can't change what's happened to me, nor am I going to deny that it happened.

All I can do is continue to reaffirm the truths I've learned through revelation, reason, and personal experience and hope and pray that someday you will seek the Lord to know the truth for yourself.

You arrogantly presuppose the existence of something that has not been demonstrated to exist, whatsoever, at all.

Im not presupposing anything. The Lord revealed Himself to me through the Holy Spirit. Who am I to deny God? Why should I lie simply to please you? Why dont you do the work necessary to learn for yourself instead of getting angry at me?

The only way I will stop sharing what I know to be true is if God tells me to stop sharing it with you. And if He does that, then you are not in a good position. So I pray that never happens.

Humble yourself, seek the Lord and you will find out for yourself that He is and He loves you.

 

[amrchaos]

You do know that Socrates was most likely an Hellenic, right?

Not Jewish--but greek, yes?

There is a big difference in religious perspective here that you just discounted.

Not sure who you are responding to, but I know who Socrates was and that he was greek.

The common concepts, some based on revelation while the other is based on reason alone is part of my point.

Let make sure I understand exactly where you are coming from.

I am responding to the op that claims that Socrates is a believer--not specifying that the belief system Socrates is most likely using is Hellenic in nature. Most greek philosophers were Hellenic, Jewish, or one of the myriad of faiths from the Mediterean/North Eastern European/West Asian world as it was before Christ.

The reason why this is important is because it help lays out the foundation of Socrates Theological views. So what if Socrates believed in God--which God did Socrates believe in becomes important in terms of using Socrates views as an establishment of theological truths. If He was of the Jewish tradition, then Judeo-Christians can happily use Socrates as an example to believe their version of the theological world.

On the other hand, If Socrates was Hellenic--or a member of any other religion that was not of the Jewish variety, then Socrates can not be used by Judeo-Christians to establish their beliefs as truth because they are using an example that, upon research, will contradict their beliefs in their god.

In short, it becomes imperative to do more than give several quotes from Socrates and slap the label "believer" to him-- since Socrates may not be a believer in the Judeo-Christian faith although he has stated a belief in a god/creator. That God/creator may be someone else such as Cronus or even Jupite/Zeus. Are we then to accept the that Socrates belief as our own if this is the case?

By the way--most philosophers of the ancient world were not atheists. In fact, I would love to find one that was!(Try it--you would quickly learn how deep and unrewarding such a search would become!) So stating Socrates is not an atheists (even without quotes) is similiar to saying all oranges are--orange!

 

[JimBowie1958]

No. You're right. There isnt a God because I want there to be. God is there whether I want Him to be or not. He's there whether you want Him to be or not. Faith or lack thereof doesnt establish or eliminate God's existence.

I know there is a God because of personal experience. I sought the Lord and He revealed Himself to me through His Holy Spirit. I didn't know whether there really was a God when I started seeking. I didnt know how or in what way He could or would let me know if He was there. But when I learned it, I realized it was true and I could not deny it. I knew that when the Lord revealed the truth to me, I needed to change my life and live the Truth He was teaching me and not just drift in life.

I would be a totally different person if God hadnt acted in my life. I can point to the very moment where I learned the Truth, and it completely changed the path I was on.

You may doubt. I understand, I did once too. You may not believe. After all, these are my experiences, not yours. But it doesnt change the fact that I am telling the truth about my experiences. You can mock, belittle, deny, and I can't change what's happened to me, nor am I going to deny that it happened.

All I can do is continue to reaffirm the truths I've learned through revelation, reason, and personal experience and hope and pray that someday you will seek the Lord to know the truth for yourself.

You arrogantly presuppose the existence of something that has not been demonstrated to exist, whatsoever, at all.

Im not presupposing anything. The Lord revealed Himself to me through the Holy Spirit. Who am I to deny God? Why should I lie simply to please you? Why dont you do the work necessary to learn for yourself instead of getting angry at me?

The only way I will stop sharing what I know to be true is if God tells me to stop sharing it with you. And if He does that, then you are not in a good position. So I pray that never happens.

Humble yourself, seek the Lord and you will find out for yourself that He is and He loves you.

The last thing most atheists want to encounter on this planet is Truth and humility.

Which is what makes the exceptional atheists that much more rare and a joy to talk to.

 

[Avatar4321]

Kind of like Jesus. We have all these accounts, some contradict each other, but where's the first hand documentation?

You want first hand accounts? I have no doubt you'll reject them, but if you insist:

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God (D&C 76:22-14)

Or this:

The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice. (D&C 110:1-5)

After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home.
(JS-Hist 1:15-20)

There. Three eye-witness accounts of Jesus Christ. Two Eye-witness accounts of God the Father. Two of the three accounts having multiple witnesses.

I suspect that you will change the goal posts, but I hope you won't. God doesnt leave the world without witnesses of Him and His plan. By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall ever word be established. In fact, He will continue to call witnesses until the day of judgment so that everyone may hear and have the opportunity to repent and prepare for His arrival.

 

[amrchaos]

Kind of like Jesus. We have all these accounts, some contradict each other, but where's the first hand documentation?

You want first hand accounts? I have no doubt you'll reject them, but if you insist:

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God (D&C 76:22-14)

Or this:

The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice. (D&C 110:1-5)

After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home.
(JS-Hist 1:15-20)

There. Three eye-witness accounts of Jesus Christ. Two Eye-witness accounts of God the Father. Two of the three accounts having multiple witnesses.

I suspect that you will change the goal posts, but I hope you won't. God doesnt leave the world without witnesses of Him and His plan. By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall ever word be established. In fact, He will continue to call witnesses until the day of judgment so that everyone may hear and have the opportunity to repent and prepare for His arrival.

Hey Avatar

You are using the words of Joseph Smith and his followers which seems to give credit to an atheistic argument(although I am not the one arguing with you here) that one should not take the testimony of a group of believers as truth.

You may not consider this reasonable, but that is because you are on the "INSIDE". Those on the "OUTSIDE" understand why such testimony becomes unusable.

 

[newpolitics]

No. You're right. There isnt a God because I want there to be. God is there whether I want Him to be or not. He's there whether you want Him to be or not. Faith or lack thereof doesnt establish or eliminate God's existence.

I know there is a God because of personal experience. I sought the Lord and He revealed Himself to me through His Holy Spirit. I didn't know whether there really was a God when I started seeking. I didnt know how or in what way He could or would let me know if He was there. But when I learned it, I realized it was true and I could not deny it. I knew that when the Lord revealed the truth to me, I needed to change my life and live the Truth He was teaching me and not just drift in life.

I would be a totally different person if God hadnt acted in my life. I can point to the very moment where I learned the Truth, and it completely changed the path I was on.

You may doubt. I understand, I did once too. You may not believe. After all, these are my experiences, not yours. But it doesnt change the fact that I am telling the truth about my experiences. You can mock, belittle, deny, and I can't change what's happened to me, nor am I going to deny that it happened.

All I can do is continue to reaffirm the truths I've learned through revelation, reason, and personal experience and hope and pray that someday you will seek the Lord to know the truth for yourself.

You arrogantly presuppose the existence of something that has not been demonstrated to exist, whatsoever, at all.

No, it has so been demonstrated to the satisfaction of BILLIONS of people.

The arrogance and ignorance is all yours.

nice argument ad populum. It doesn't matter how many people believe a proposition. It doesn't make that proposition true, until it is demonstrated to be true, and not a single person has ever demonstrated the existence of god.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You arrogantly presuppose the existence of something that has not been demonstrated to exist, whatsoever, at all.

No, it has so been demonstrated to the satisfaction of BILLIONS of people.

The arrogance and ignorance is all yours.

nice argument ad populum. It doesn't matter how many people believe a proposition. It doesn't make that proposition true, until it is demonstrated to be true, and not a single person has ever demonstrated the existence of god.

That 4 billion people belive in God does not prove anything scientifically but it does establish the plausibility of the thing asserted. In fact, studies have shown that the people as a whole tend to get things pretty darned right most of the time, better than any nonscientific/mathematical process.

If a person is looking for directions to a store in a strange neighborhood, they dont get out the chemistry lab or try to find a mathemaitcal algorythm that has anything to say about where the store is.

In criminal trials far less of the evidence is scientific and far more often is based on eye witness testimony and common sense.

History is nothing more than the record of what people have seen felt and heard. No labs required.

In fact the vast majority of what we call knowlege is simply convention defined by those around us.

There is more knowlege that we live by day to day than what science and mathematics can prove.

So your inability to grasp the scientific, historical or mathematical facts that point to the existance of an eternal creator is not so much a reflection on the concept of God than it is a reflection of your moral inability to accept that there is something far greater than yourself and He demands that humanity live by a law with respect to ourselves, our fellows and His Creation.

 

[newpolitics]

...and?

Socrates believed in a Creator God who existed prior to the universe that He created, similar to the Jewish concept of God as Creator and not merely some tribal deity.

What this demonstrates is the rational quality of the concept of God and that such concepts do not have to come by revelation but can also be understood by the simple use of reason.

All this demonstrates is that people are inclined towards explanation, ..

What an amazingly arrogant and conceited thing to say. We disagree with your conclusion, so it must all be due to something irrational, like a preference for explanation? Except that you completely ignore the fact that a great many converts to the Abrahamic faiths did not want to convert at all, but honesty forced them to follow the dictates of their conscience and respect the apparent Truth.

What gives you the moral or intelectual superiority to so condescendingly dismiss the beliefs of billions of people throughout history?



It is interesting to read heathen trying to disprove God's existence by showing other benefits of His existance that do not require Him to actually exist, as though asserting that because infrared light is warm and we would want to believe that there is this source of warmth, we merely believe it because we wish it, never mind all the actual evidence for infrared light.



As has belief in how to make fire, how to hunt prey, belief in the eventual return of summer after a cold winter, etc, so what?



Ah, the old 'God-of-the-Gaps cannot exist' bullshit. Simply because God is used as a childish crutch by some people does not mean that He is simply a childhood bed time story any more than the Illiad was.



No duh, Sherlock.

Attempting to do so by asserting God as a causal explanation for natural phenomena is one big argument from ignorance, a favorite among theists. "I can't think of any better explanation, therefore: God."

No, it is not an argument in the first place it is merely an explanation of the 'I dunno how that fuel injector works, but GM made it that way' variety, implying that there must be a reason for its design.

That's a logical fallacy.

No, it is not an attempt at logic, therefore it cannot be a logical fallacy.

To say 'I like ice cream' is not a logical fallacy simply because it is not logical, when it was never intended to be understood as logic in the first place.

I don't care how many people have believed throughout history. That has nothing to do with whether what they believed is true. God can not be demonstrated because X amount of people now believe it to be true. (That is an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy: the amount of people who believe something doesn't mean it is true) All this demonstrates is that people are emotional and vulnerable beings living a universe without explanation, and willing to make one up in order to be happier. You present a claim about a god existing, yet can not demonstrate that it is exists. You except this, by faith, which is belief without evidence. In other words, gullibility.

Are you denying that people are hungry for explanations of things they do not understand? That is all I was saying. I made no mention of what that explanation is. I said this because throughout most of human history, we didn't have any alternative explanations, because we didn't have natural science. So, people had no choice but to believe in the supernatural, and often, if they didn't, they were killed (the inquisition), considered heretical, or were social outcasts, so there was considerable social pressure to believe whatever supernatural beliefs were circulating in their culture at the time. Are you actually willing to say that, given these contexts for supernatural belief, their belief reflects something true about the universe? How do you demonstrate this? I would love to hear you demonstrate this with some kind of argument. The point is, their belief was not based on any evidence, any more or less than it is today. It was the only explanation available at the time, and often enforced by the state explicitly or implicitly by the culture they were in.

I don't care whether or not you are attempting logic or not. You must use logic to make an argument, and the argument you are making lacks logical continuity. You can not demonstrate that a god exists, so I have no reason to believe. You may believe based on personal testimony, but that gives me no reason to believe, and I do not believe that your experiences with god are caused by a god, but by your own fallacious interpretation of objective reality, because you want to find god wherever you can. Being that you, like every human, contains a mind that is great at detecting patterns, it is more feasible that you falsely interpret events to be caused by god, when in fact, they are not caused by god. There are other explanations.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Kind of like Jesus. We have all these accounts, some contradict each other, but where's the first hand documentation?

You want first hand accounts? I have no doubt you'll reject them, but if you insist:

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God (D&C 76:22-14)

Or this:

The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice. (D&C 110:1-5)

After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home.
(JS-Hist 1:15-20)

There. Three eye-witness accounts of Jesus Christ. Two Eye-witness accounts of God the Father. Two of the three accounts having multiple witnesses.

I suspect that you will change the goal posts, but I hope you won't. God doesnt leave the world without witnesses of Him and His plan. By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall ever word be established. In fact, He will continue to call witnesses until the day of judgment so that everyone may hear and have the opportunity to repent and prepare for His arrival.

Your evidence falls on deaf ears and eyes that refuse to see.

You waste your time on Joe. He does not have the fortitude to live by fact or faith.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't care how many people have believed throughout history.

Of course not; you are too superior for the droll consensus of mankind, lol.

That has nothing to do with whether what they believed is true. God can not be demonstrated because X amount of people now believe it to be true. (That is an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy: the amount of people who believe something doesn't mean it is true)

In a criminal trial, if 4 billion people say that they have experienced something that proves an acused man innocent or guilty, you really suppose that is irrelevant?

Oh, wait, we are talking about you, a Master of the Universe, lol, never mind.

And again, observations are not arguments, and therefore are not logical fallacies as they are never intended to be considered logical assertions, doofus.

All this demonstrates is that people are emotional and vulnerable beings living a universe without explanation, and willing to make one up in order to be happier.

Kinda like you pretending God does not exist?

You present a claim about a god existing, yet can not demonstrate that it is exists. You except this, by faith, which is belief without evidence. In other words, gullibility.

No, I base my faith largely on facts and it is you who are excersizing faith by presupposing that I have no facts to support my belief that God exists. In other words, you are gullible in regard to your own ego driven fantasies.

Are you denying that people are hungry for explanations of things they do not understand? That is all I was saying. I made no mention of what that explanation is.

But you implied that your observation of people using God to explain the unknown is somehow relevant to the considerations of our time by asserting that this suggests that there are no other reasons for faith in a Creator other than this role of explaining the unknown.

And in that you are being silly and presumptive.

I said this because throughout most of human history, we didn't have any alternative explanations, because we didn't have natural science. So, people had no choice but to believe in the supernatural,

Oh, that is bullshit. People were able to make observations about the universe and learn from it well prior to modern science. You have apparently drank all that damned Kool Aid.

For example, much was known about engineering and built huge networks of roads, aqueducts, canals, mills, and ship travel prior to science. Some scholars were able to estimate the circumference of the Earth and the distance and diameter of the moon. Some speculated that the universe was made of atoms of various kinds arranged in different patterns, and that mathematical processes could describe all the behavior of the universe.

Bah, you are far too dismissive of the knowlege of mankind prior to the advent of modern science, but in fact, were it not for that knowlege, science would have never been born.

and often, if they didn't, they were killed (the inquisition), considered heretical, or were social outcasts, so there was considerable social pressure to believe whatever supernatural beliefs were circulating in their culture at the time.

Lol, you believe in the myth of the Inquisition going around killing people, which they didnt. The inquisition merely denounced people as not being Christian and the secular state, desperate to maintain the buttress of religion, would then punish them, rarely was it the church itself.

Are you actually going to say that their belief reflects something true about the universe? I would love to hear you demonstrate this with some kind of argument.

OK, they had excellent records of the movements of planets and could predict various occurences in the sky, such as lunar eclipses. As it was useful and acurate their knowlege was valid in so far as they could test it.

Thus they knew somethin useful about the universe, Einstein.

The point is, their belief was not based on any evidence. It was the only explanation available at the time, and often enforced by the state explicitly or implicitly by the culture they were in.

The belief in God was in fact based on personal observations and experiences that acumulated within cultures and passed down.

Some of them knew that the flow of time cannot be itself eternal else we could not arrive at the present from an infinite past. There had to be a begining to the flow of time. They also undrestood what design looks like and could see it in the universe around us and this suggests a designer, much as the laws of science suggest a law-giver.

I don't care whether or not you are attempting logic or not. You must use logic to make an argument, and the argument you are making lacks logical continuity.

One does not have to use use logic to make a nonlogical argument, such as 'I am going to stat Mendenhall next week because his knee looks better.' Though it is nonlogical, it is still an argument. 'I want you to buy me a vanilla ice cream because I like vanilla.' is not a logical argument but an argument none the less. One could make it into a sylogism, I suppose, but it is far from needful.

You can not demonstrate that a god exists, so I have no reason to believe.

Actually but I can. I can show a mathematical model for God, logical mathematical arguments to support said contention and point to a universe of evidence that demonstrates it using circumstantial plausibility arguments (nonlogical) all the same.

In fact, science itself proves that the universe is designed by God since it has thus far been entirely capable of being described in human language and mathematical concepts, implying a mind behind it.

Your problem is that you CHOOSE to ignore the obvious nature of this evidence and subscribe instead to simply implausible theories that only accomplish one thing; evading a moral demand.

You may believe based on personal testimony, but that gives me no reason to believe,

That my personal testimony gives you no 'reason' I have no doubt. I think you too arrogant to actually listen to anything anyone else has to say about these things since you think you know all about the topic already anyway.

and I do not believe that your experiences with god or caused by a god, but by your own fallacious interpretation of objective reality, because you want to find god wherever you can.

You dont know jack shit about me, but you choose to believe that I *want* to believe in God. You are the gullible presumptive child here, not any believers.

Being that you, like every human, contains a mind that is great at detecting patterns, it is more feasible that you falsely interpret events to be caused by god, when in fact, they are not caused by god.

You think you *know* that they are not caused by God?

ROFLMAO.

And what science or math did you employ to come to that conclusion? lolol

There are other explanations.

But these other explanations do not disprove anything, as these explanations are merely the method used, but do not disprove a mind behind the method at all.

You are presumptuous, gullible to believe all this atheistic bullshit, and have a deep hostility to anything greater than yourself, apparently.

I wont waste my time praying for you. Mabye Avatar might, but I would hope he had better things to pursue with his time than that.

 

[newpolitics]

I don't care how many people have believed throughout history.

Of course not; you are too superior for the droll consensus of mankind, lol.

That has nothing to do with whether what they believed is true. God can not be demonstrated because X amount of people now believe it to be true. (That is an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy: the amount of people who believe something doesn't mean it is true)

In a criminal trial, if 4 billion people say that they have experienced something that proves an acused man innocent or guilty, you really suppose that is irrelevant?

Oh, wait, we are talking about you, a Master of the Universe, lol, never mind.

And again, observations are not arguments, and therefore are not logical fallacies as they are never intended to be considered logical assertions, doofus.



Kinda like you pretending God does not exist?



No, I base my faith largely on facts and it is you who are excersizing faith by presupposing that I have no facts to support my belief that God exists. In other words, you are gullible in regard to your own ego driven fantasies.



But you implied that your observation of people using to God to explain the unknown is somehow relevant to the considerations of our time by asserting that this suggests that there are no other reasons for faith a Creator other than this role of explaining the unknown.

And in that you are being silly and presumptive.



Oh, that is bullshit. People were able to make observations about the universe and learn from it well prior to modern science. You have apparently drank all that damned Kool Aid.

For example, much was known about engineering and huge networks of roads, aqueducts, canals, mills, and ship travel prior to science. Some scholars were able to estimate the circumference of the Earth and the distance and diameter of the moon. Some speculated that the universe was made of atoms of various kinds arranged in different patterns, and that mathematical processes could describe all the behavior of the universe.

Bah, you are far too dismissive of the knowlege of mankind prior to the advent of modern science, in fact, were it not for that knowlege, science would have never been born.



Lol, you believe in the myth of the Inquisition going around killing people, which they didnt. The inquisition merely denounced people as not being Christian and the secular state, desperate to maintain the buttress of religion, would then punish them, rarely was it the church itself.



OK, they had excellent records of the movements of planets and could predict various occurences in the sky, such as lunar eclipses. As it was useful and acurate their knowlege was valid in so far as they could test it.



The belief in God was in fact based on personal observations and experiences that acumulated within cultures and passed down.

Some of them knew that the flow of tiem cannot be itself eternal else we could not arrive at the present from an infinite past. There had to be a begining to the flow of time. They also undrestood what design looks like and could see it in the universe around us and this suggests a designer, much as the laws of science suggest a law-giver.



One does not have to use use logic to make a nonlogical argument, such as 'I am going to stat Mendenhall next week because his knee looks better.' Though it is nonlogical, it is still an argument. 'I want you to buy me a vanilla ice cream because I like vanilla.' is not a logical argument but an argument none the less. One could make it into a sylogism, I suppose, but it is far from needful.




Actually but I can. I can show a mathematical model for God, logical mathematical arguments to support said contention and point to a universe of evidence that demonstrates it using circumstantial plausibility arguments (nonlogical) all the same.

In fact, science itself proves that the universe is designed by God since it has thus far been entirely capable of being described in human language and mathematical concepts, implying a mind behind it.

Your problem is that yo CHOOSE to ignore the obvious nature of this evidence and subscribe instead to simply implausible theories that only accomplish one thing; evading a moral demand.



That my personal testimony gives you no 'reason' I have no doubt. I think you too arrogant to actually listen to anything anyone else has to say about these things since you think you know all about the topic already anyway.



You dont know jack shit about me, but you choose to believe that I *want* to believe in God. You are the gullible presumptive child here, not any believers.

Being that you, like every human, contains a mind that is great at detecting patterns, it is more feasible that you falsely interpret events to be caused by god, when in fact, they are not caused by god.

You think you *know* that they are not caused by God?

ROFLMAO.

And what science or math did you employ to come to that conclusion? lolol

There are other explanations.

But these other explanations do not disprove anything, as these explanations are merely the method used, but do not disprove a mind behind the method at all.

You are presumptuous, gullible to believe all this atheistic bullshit, and have a deep hostility to anything greater than yourself, apparently.

I wont waste my time praying for you. Mabye Avatar might, but I would hope he had better things to pursue with his time than that.

Non-logical argument? Yeah, you're done.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hey Avatar

You are using the words of Joseph Smith and his followers which seems to give credit to an atheistic argument(although I am not the one arguing with you here) that one should not take the testimony of a group of believers as truth.

You may not consider this reasonable, but that is because you are on the "INSIDE". Those on the "OUTSIDE" understand why such testimony becomes unusable.

Okay. Why is it unusable? Because you disagree with it?

 

[JoeB131]

What we know of Socrates comes from Plato's Republic... which indicates Socrates might have been a literary device.

You fucking ignoramus, that is not true and easily shown. If you had an ounce of honesty in you you would investigate the subject just a little before running your mouth, and you would see that there are two other authors who referenced Socrates; Xenophon and Arstophenes. Hell, just look at the Wikipedia article on them and that would be plenty.

.

Except Xenophon doesn't mention Socrates in his histories, and Aristophones only uses him as a character in a play. So again, you have two other guys using him as a literary device, not actually describing a real person...

 

[JoeB131]

Kind of like Jesus. We have all these accounts, some contradict each other, but where's the first hand documentation?

Oh, you mean like the Gospel of John, or Luke, or Matthew?

But they cant be real since that would make plain what a stupid proposition you assert.

Okay.... let's look at that. We can immediately throw out Luke, because Luke never met Jesus. We can throw out Mark for the same reason. But let's not throw out Mark in such a big hurry.

The interesting thing about Mark is that Matthew and Luke repeat 90% of Mark in their Gospels, and add some additional stuff. Mostly, they contradict each other, on things like who Jesus's ancestors were and such. So if Matthew knew Jesus, why would he plagarize the Gospel of someone who never met Jesus. So we can throw out Matthew as well.

Okay, that brings us to the Trippy Gospel of John. Really contradicts the other three. And it was the last one written... (Again, if they were written by someone who knew Jesus, it whould be the first one, shouldn't it?) Contradicts the other three in a lot of places.

Now, what we don't have is actual accounts from NON-Christian authors in Real time. A bunch of Messiahs were identified in histories of the time, and nearly all of them found themselves on the business end of a Roman Cross, but the name that does not show up is Jesus of Nazareth.. which isn't surprising, there's no evidence there was a town of Nazareth in the first century.

Jesus does show up in the writings of a few non-Christian authors, namely Tacitus and Josephus, but these are almost without a doubt insertation by later Christian Scribes.