Argument against Christian God

[Samof94]

One piece of evidence against Christianity I can think of is that so many other religions exist and seem to be as equally valid. What makes people think Christianity is more “true” than Norse Or Aztec mythology??? This also applies to other religions like Judaism, a religion that rejects Jesus as divine.

[Kingpoleon]

To pretend to have debunked the existence of a religion or philosophy by pointing out that there are, in fact, others is an impressive feat. Congratulations.

[afleitch]

That Judaism still exists, as Jesus did not meet the standards for the Messiah of that faith, is a good argument against the Christian Yahweh. Not that this in itself isupports, or there is a priori support of the existence of the 'Jewish Yahweh' by extension.

[Kingpoleon]

That Judaism still exists, as Jesus did not meet the standards for the Messiah of that faith, is a good argument against the Christian Yahweh. Not that this in itself isupports, or there is a priori support of the existence of the 'Jewish Yahweh' by extension.

I find it rather odd to assert that the lack of Jewish converts, when in fact there were a huge number, is indicative that Jesus was not the Christ.

[If my soul was made of stone]

If one has an interest in the occult concepts of the tulpa or the egregore, then one might argue that all of humanity's deities exist by virtue of having those who believe in them, and thus creating a separate manifestation of their collective faith as its own being. Even if one does not subscribe to that particular conjecture, all deities are clearly manifested through their impact on their worshippers, and have some sort of force even if one denies the existence of some or all of them. Thus I do not deny the existence and significance to others of those that they worship, even though their gods may mean nothing to me, and mine to theirs.

[afleitch]

That Judaism still exists, as Jesus did not meet the standards for the Messiah of that faith, is a good argument against the Christian Yahweh. Not that this in itself isupports, or there is a priori support of the existence of the 'Jewish Yahweh' by extension.

I find it rather odd to assert that the lack of Jewish converts, when in fact there were a huge number, is indicative that Jesus was not the Christ.

That's not what I said.

I said that Judaism still exists. I said not one word about converts.

Slightly off topic, why do you do this in your discussions? You often rebute points the other person isn't making.

[Mopsus]

If you’re going to use that kind of crude reasoning, surely the religion that’s “most likely” to be true is the one with the most adherents, right?

[TJ in Oregon]

That Judaism still exists, as Jesus did not meet the standards for the Messiah of that faith, is a good argument against the Christian Yahweh. Not that this in itself isupports, or there is a priori support of the existence of the 'Jewish Yahweh' by extension.

I find it rather odd to assert that the lack of Jewish converts, when in fact there were a huge number, is indicative that Jesus was not the Christ.

That's not what I said.

I said that Judaism still exists. I said not one word about converts.

Slightly off topic, why do you do this in your discussions? You often rebute points the other person isn't making.

Why would we expect that if Jesus was the Messiah, 100% of Jews would recognize it?

[afleitch]

That Judaism still exists, as Jesus did not meet the standards for the Messiah of that faith, is a good argument against the Christian Yahweh. Not that this in itself isupports, or there is a priori support of the existence of the 'Jewish Yahweh' by extension.

I find it rather odd to assert that the lack of Jewish converts, when in fact there were a huge number, is indicative that Jesus was not the Christ.

That's not what I said.

I said that Judaism still exists. I said not one word about converts.

Slightly off topic, why do you do this in your discussions? You often rebute points the other person isn't making.

Why would we expect that if Jesus was the Messiah, 100% of Jews would recognize it?

Why would we expect if Jesus was not the Messiah, 100% of Jews would recognise it?

The point is that the Jewish faith and the Jewish people have suffered 2000 years of great persecution partly based on the fact they didn't recognise Jesus as the Messiah and they are still thriving and still steadfast in their belief.

[Samof94]

That Judaism still exists, as Jesus did not meet the standards for the Messiah of that faith, is a good argument against the Christian Yahweh. Not that this in itself isupports, or there is a priori support of the existence of the 'Jewish Yahweh’s ' by extension.

Agreed. Revelation tries to “fix” it in the most convoluted way possible. Also, the fact Islam is a thing, which claims Jesus was only a prophet, is also an argument for the same reasons.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If one has an interest in the occult concepts of the tulpa or the egregore, then one might argue that all of humanity's deities exist by virtue of having those who believe in them, and thus creating a separate manifestation of their collective faith as its own being. Even if one does not subscribe to that particular conjecture, all deities are clearly manifested through their impact on their worshippers, and have some sort of force even if one denies the existence of some or all of them. Thus I do not deny the existence and significance to others of those that they worship, even though their gods may mean nothing to me, and mine to theirs.

"Occult" strikes me as a sort of Western-centric way of describing tulpas. In certain forms of Vajrayana Buddhism they're an accepted and familiar concept (and, indeed, the Dalai Lama is supposed in some schools of thought to be a tulpa of Avalokitesvara, not the other way around as you're suggesting). The way most Westerners think of them is occult, sure.

[If my soul was made of stone]

If one has an interest in the occult concepts of the tulpa or the egregore, then one might argue that all of humanity's deities exist by virtue of having those who believe in them, and thus creating a separate manifestation of their collective faith as its own being. Even if one does not subscribe to that particular conjecture, all deities are clearly manifested through their impact on their worshippers, and have some sort of force even if one denies the existence of some or all of them. Thus I do not deny the existence and significance to others of those that they worship, even though their gods may mean nothing to me, and mine to theirs.

"Occult" strikes me as a sort of Western-centric way of describing tulpas. In certain forms of Vajrayana Buddhism they're an accepted and familiar concept (and, indeed, the Dalai Lama is supposed in some schools of thought to be a tulpa of Avalokitesvara, not the other way around as you're suggesting). The way most Westerners think of them is occult, sure.

That's true, but I was more invoking the Westernized conception thereof as opposed to the Buddhist conception, which I figured would be less familiar to an audience such as this one, and with which I feel less of a cultural connection on account of my very Westernized experiences, debates over authenticity aside.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If one has an interest in the occult concepts of the tulpa or the egregore, then one might argue that all of humanity's deities exist by virtue of having those who believe in them, and thus creating a separate manifestation of their collective faith as its own being. Even if one does not subscribe to that particular conjecture, all deities are clearly manifested through their impact on their worshippers, and have some sort of force even if one denies the existence of some or all of them. Thus I do not deny the existence and significance to others of those that they worship, even though their gods may mean nothing to me, and mine to theirs.

"Occult" strikes me as a sort of Western-centric way of describing tulpas. In certain forms of Vajrayana Buddhism they're an accepted and familiar concept (and, indeed, the Dalai Lama is supposed in some schools of thought to be a tulpa of Avalokitesvara, not the other way around as you're suggesting). The way most Westerners think of them is occult, sure.

That's true, but I was more invoking the Westernized conception thereof as opposed to the Buddhist conception, which I figured would be less familiar to an audience such as this one, and with which I feel less of a cultural connection on account of my very Westernized experiences, debates over authenticity aside.

Yeah, I get that; I've just had a tendency to get grousy about this sort of thing ever since reading Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West when I was at BU. (Great book, if you're not familiar with it.)

[Diabolical Materialism]

What are the arguments in favor of the Christian God?

[Mopsus]

What are the arguments in favor of the Christian God?

G. K. Chesterton - Orthodoxy
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

[Samof94]

What are the arguments in favor of the Christian God?

G. K. Chesterton - Orthodoxy
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Other religions have their own authors coming up with ideas. That’s a weak argument.

[Mopsus]

What are the arguments in favor of the Christian God?

G. K. Chesterton - Orthodoxy
C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Other religions have their own authors coming up with ideas. That’s a weak argument.

I was referring to the arguments presented in those books, not to the fact that such books exist...

[Kingpoleon]

Other religions have their own authors coming up with ideas. That’s a weak argument.

I have never personally experienced seeing apologetic books by people from other religions, so I am forced to conclude this is merely an atheistic delusion.

[°Leprechaun]

I recommend Sagan's "A demon haunted world" and the Dalai Lama's "The universe in a single atom."

[Kingpoleon]

I recommend Sagan's "A demon haunted world" and the Dalai Lama's "The universe in a single atom."

I’m sorry, I don’t think you understand. I am rejecting your argument from experience as a hallucination, and must therefore conclude these books don’t exist.

[°Leprechaun]

I recommend Sagan's "A demon haunted world" and the Dalai Lama's "The universe in a single atom."

I’m sorry, I don’t think you understand. I am rejecting your argument from experience as a hallucination, and must therefore conclude these books don’t exist.

Maybe I am just a butterfly having a nightmare that I am only just a man or am I only dreaming that you exist... who really knows anything with absolute certainty, after all?

[Kingpoleon]

Maybe I am just a butterfly having a nightmare that I am only just a man or am I only dreaming that you exist... who really knows anything with absolute certainty, after all?

I was mocking the most common opposition to the argument from religious experience which suggests that such experiences are illusionary or delusional.

[PSOL]

Generally using adherent numbers instead of a general take of comparing with others and pondering how they know “better” is a bad argument.

[Samof94]

Maybe I am just a butterfly having a nightmare that I am only just a man or am I only dreaming that you exist... who really knows anything with absolute certainty, after all?

I was mocking the most common opposition to the argument from religious experience which suggests that such experiences are illusionary or delusional.

Aren’t they culturally determined? I don’t generally hear about a little Baptist boy  in Houston hearing the Hindu Gods in heaven speaking Sanskrit.

[Samof94]

Other religions have their own authors coming up with ideas. That’s a weak argument.

I have never personally experienced seeing apologetic books by people from other religions, so I am forced to conclude this is merely an atheistic delusion.

There’s a lot of Islamic apologetic literature.