Hello, everyone! I am new here and this is something I have been rolling around in my head for some time now. I'd love your thoughts on it.
During most if not all conversations I have had with theists, I have observed a pattern of reasoning, which I like to call “the five stages of God” and which I will try to explain below.
The “five stages” work mostly with the Abrahamic religions, since they are the ones that I encounter most often, in real life or the Internet.
Let's say that I am debating an Orthodox Christian, as it is common in my home country of Greece. This person believes in an omnipotent, creator, interventionist God, and, although it's the same God worshiped by Catholics and Protestants (and Jews and Muslims, but that's a little more removed) that person, let's say it's a 'he', believes that the little differences between his particular denomination and the others, make it the One True Word of the Ultimate Being.
Now, enter me. An atheist, that remains unconvinced. My debater wants to prove that what he believes is real. The point is, he thinks that all the qualities of God I have described, go together. And I ask: Why? How come?
This is what I call the “five stages of God”. The five assumptions an Abrahamic theist makes, and for each of which he believes that it proves his point as a whole. Which is, of course, nonsense. The problem of course is that, if I concede Stage 1, the theist thinks I have conceded them all. And that is the trouble in debating them.
Stage 1: The Creator God
This is the chief assumption of all religion, and the chief point that atheists contest. With that I mean the existence of a Will that set the Universe in motion, created it or created the conditions in which it came into existence, for example the Big Bang. I say Will and not Intelligence because I want to emphasize the point that Stage 1 does not prove
Stage 2: The Intelligent God
Why does Creation require or demand Intelligence? Why is the creator God an almighty being and not simply a being with that one, singular ability of creation, like a simple organism giving birth? I realize that it is a simplistic argument, but my point stands that the Creator God does not need to be an Intelligent one. Of course, the Intelligent God does not prove
Stage 3: The Omnipotent, Omnipresent God.
Now, I group these two together, although they can be contested separately. Even if the Creator God 'survived' his Creation (also an assumption), why does he contain these qualities? If he exists, why does he know everything and is everywhere? How is the act of Creation, either instinctively or by design, pertain the Omnipresence and Omnipotence of God? Even if it does, this does not prove
Stage 4: The Interventionist God.
This is the crucial point that separates religious people from theists. The turning point of each religion. That an Omnipresent and Omnipotent God, a transcendent up until now God, takes the time and energy to make himself not only known to humans, but also has rules and conditions for them to follow, and begins to contain human characteristics. He is benevolent, pleased or displeased, vindictive, judgmental or all of the above. Point is, he is exhibiting human characteristics, that make him seem a lot more like the pagan or ancient Greek gods. He takes an active interest in the affairs of humanity, guides or punishes them, all the while, presumably, running the Universe. But still this does not prove
Stage 5: Your God.
How on Earth are you so sure that you have the right one? Pascal's wager is pretty fun, but it applies from Stage 4 and up, not here. You and a handful of other people follow the Truth all the way up to Stage 1? And yet, this is exactly the problem. Although all through history extremely bloody wars have been fought over differences on Stage 5, a theist, any theist, believes that if I concede Stage 1, as an agnostic would, I have conceded them all at least until Stage 4. Which is simply not true. It is obvious that an Orthodox Christian that believes in a Stage 5 God has conceded all the stages before it, and indeed, if a later Stage is conceded it mostly proves all the stages before it (I say 'mostly' because this happens in Abrahamic religions. For example, a believer in the 12 Gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon can concede Stages 4 and 5 alone.)
And therein lies my frustration with theists. A theist (usually) vehemently believes that all five Stages can be debated as one, whereas I do not. What are your thoughts?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
".. although it's the same God worshiped by Catholics and Protestants (and Jews and Muslims, but that's a little more removed)"
Even that is an assumption. There are regular, ridiculous debates about whether there is one god and several Abrahamic religions, or whether those religions worship different gods....
http://rzim.org/global-blog/do-christians-and-muslims-worship-the-same-g...
In the 21st Century, with all we now know, why worship a god at all?!
Engage any believers of the same sect, such as Christians, and I think you will discover they don't define exactly the same god. For example, one Christian friend of mine insists that the resurrection is central and so must have happened (it is "well documented" in her view) while others are less superstitious but still insist there's a god of some sort, or think that probable or likely. They don't seem eager to talk about it and some view such 'beliefs' as personal.
So, I think '5 stages' can be viewed as a little arbitrary....
http://www.kyroot.com/
As superstitious beliefs die out, including beliefs about god, there remains the distinction between religion and belief in a god. As the increase in the 'nones' in the USA may illustrate, belief that a god of some sort exists can persist independently of organised religion. The latter is becoming increasingly discredited.
If I may chip in a little for the first one it may give you the idea what actually mean with the word "create":
"Have you seen that which you emit?"
"Is it you who creates it, or are We the Creator?"
"We have decreed death among you, and We are not to be outrun" (56:58-60)
I can't imagine God inside our body busily making the sperm (which you emit) while we have an erection.
You may correct me if this is not what you meant.
I'm not trying speak for the OP, but I think he means a general creation. As in, a god or deity directly created the universe, or created the conditions under which the universe formed.
Basically, if it weren't for this god, the universe itself wouldn't exist.
@Windeye:
Seriously, I've read the whole diatribe carefully, but as much as I wanted to make a dissertation about it... it seemed to me an absolute waste of time.
It's very simple, god, or gods don't exist and besides I can prove it, the rest is pure crap.
No, unfortunately you cannot prove it.
@phetaroi:
No, I can really prove it, anyone can. I'm sorry.
I have an extreme opinion regarding stage 5. I think each believer has created a god uniquely their own. The god creation process is ongoing in their imagination. They might think they share a belief in that god with others but not so. The imaginings are their own. They even alter the image of god in their own mind so that the god they created yesterday is not the god they believe in today. This is similar to the the creation of memory. Every time we recall a stored memory we create a new memory of that event. No man is an island but their gods surely are!
Surely Abrahamic gods have been disproved? As if they need to be! The Bible, for example, seems to have come into existence during the Conferences of Nicea in 325CE and one in 399 CE. (I can't remember the exact details, off-hand). Similarly, all the god(s) in godchecker.com have been disproved...
godchecker.com
We have perfectly rational explanations and evidence of how and when they were invented.
I think you've gone a step too far. To say there is no evidence is, I think, accurate. To say "they" have been "dis-proven" is probably not accurate.
And I'm not sure it matters if "they" had been dis-proven if most people still believe.
@phetaroi:
Does that mean that as most children believe in Santa... he exists? It's a bold statement. Have you any proof of Santa's existence? There're stupid things that can not be sustained no matter how much you repeat them, and this is one of them... like the rest.
I no longer believe that God exists. But you go ahead and show me your irrefutable scientific proof that God does not exist.
@phetaroi:
Sure, to make it easy for you to understand... https://youtu.be/VuyYGVDCdN0 ... and if you have any doubts about it, or you think you can refute anything is shown, please do not hesitate to go to https://twitter.com/steven_hawking, if you are able to ask a smart question about it always answer. Go ahead.
Sorry, don't accept that "essay"...well done as it is...as PROOF that God does not exist. We all have a bias here. Some more than others.
The whole of it assumes a monotheistic entity that has no provenance without revelation. Until such time as revelation is inarguably in hand, polytheism is what we must accept as the only logical perception of a god by all who profess a belief in one.
Without revelation, there is no primary, unique reference for a deity all can say they've seen and are familiar with. It can only be imagined. In the psyche of each individual who embraces a notion of a god lies a conjuring of what god is. Each person is different and visualizes their gods differently. Only this perception can have precedence over the biblical deity at large.
There never has been revelation. Emperor Constantine had the bishops write into the developing bible that the jesus character, theretofore a mere Docetic conjuring by Paul that turned into a nasty fight between Presbyter Arius and Bishop Alexander, be written into it as a god despite the Nazarene Cult's recording of him as a mere man stoned to death 425 years before by the Hebrews and 150 years before Paul got wind of the story from the surviving Nazarene cult. The Bible would promote the jesus character as god on earth per Constantine's edict, though the minutes of that meeting in Nicea clearly record his order to the bishops that his edicts were to be shown as the word of god. It is the result of that meeting in 325 CE that jesus was finally profiled as god on Earth and yet no contributor to The Bible was alive at the time the biblical events took place, as originally written by Paul.
So, no revelation, no logical provenance for a god.
Why this point is so clearly deflected has always baffled me. How can there be an argument for something that is promoted to exist but has never existed in the logical world where man clearly stands his ground on all other matters of cogent thought? Man creates a god, replaces him with another god and so on in the known historicity of god-making yet this particular god just so happens to be accepted as a superseding only god by....what known logic? There isn't one. We only have a book of 700,000+ words that clearly has no basis in logic and never fails to be defeated by the known events of archeological significance in glaring deference to it.
So, there is no 1st stage of god much less 4 following stages.
Do people really believe that Constantine was the one who had the Bible made?
If you mean compiled, then probably so.
Maybe it's best you guys read this:
https://historyforatheists.com/2017/05/the-great-myths-4-constantine-nic...
The writer is an atheist himself and he writes a bunch of these articles to clear up many misconceptions.
Constantine ordered 50 manuscripts that were a compilation of the of the "sacred [Christian] texts" to be produced. It is thought by many scholars that this order was the impious to create a (defacto) Christian canon. Those efforts resulted in the earliest known bibles.
"It is thought by many scholars that this order was the impious to create a (defacto) Christian canon. Those efforts resulted in the earliest known bibles."
Then please explain the Muratorian Canon, which predates the birth of Constantine by about 100 years.
Maybe it influenced Constantine's scribes? Or perhaps it does not predate Constantine. Additionally, I don't think it matches any canon. It is easy to write the name of some books down; it is quite another to produce and distributed actual compilations.
"Maybe it influenced Constantine's scribes"
Since we know that Constantine commissioned Eusebius to oversee the production of 50 Bibles (which is the historical fact that is the origin of this silly myth that 'Constantine created the Bible"), we know that what we find in the Muratorian Canon 100 years *before* Constantine and what we find in Athanasius' Canon 30 years after Constantine died are basically the same as the canon that Eusebius accepted. So the idea that Constantine somehow "created the canon of the Bible" is total nonsense. It had been in existence for about a century before he was even born. Try this - find us ANY historian who says otherwise. Good luck.
"Or perhaps it does not predate Constantine. "
Wrong.
"It is easy to write the name of some books down; it is quite another to produce and distributed actual compilations."
That's just desperately ridiculous. All the paleographical evidence indicates that the books listed in those pre-Constantinian canons were the main ones in circulation.
"That's just desperately ridiculous. All the paleographical evidence indicates that the books listed in those pre-Constantinian canons were the main ones in circulation."
Again you're demanding full bibliographical source citing from those around you and then making outrageous claims with no sources of your own.
Okay try ... well, any scholarly text on the formation of the Canon. Metzger's *The Canon of the New Testament* (Oxford, 1997) is pretty much the standard monograph. But if you want something that addresses the myth about the Canon somehow being set by Constantine, try Bart Ehrman, * Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine* (Oxford, 2004). Ehrman is pretty clear on the whole issue:
“The historical reality is that the emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the formation of the canon of scripture: he did not choose which books to include or exclude and he did not order the destruction of the gospels that were left out of the canon. …. The formation of the New Testament canon was a long and drawn out process that began centuries before Constantine and did not conclude until long after he was dead.”
So good luck explaining how you know Ehrman is wrong and finding any historian who disagrees with him.
I didn't ask you for references, I was just pointing out that you are demanding, "Sources, citations and quotes..." without providing them yourself. This thread is not a paper being submitted for peer review. One person says something and if someone thinks differently they say what they think, which is exactly what you yourself do, yet you also tack on that the other person should cite sources and give quotes, but not you, you are special.
Also, I don't see how what you claim and what I claim are that different. I never said Constantine wrote the bible and never said he put it together himself. As far as I know, he was the first to commission a mass publication of it and asked the church leaders themselves to compile the canon. That makes him responsible for the bible as a publication, which is really only interesting because he was not a Christian.
The only thing I stated which may be debatable is that he approved it, because do you seriously think he would let it slide if it didn't specifically endorse secular rule or if it instructed it's reader to only obey laws of the church? That is extreme gullibility, but as I know of no original source to back that up I am more than happy to separate it out as conjecture.
BTW, I happen to like Ehrman mostly, but he is not the end all and be all and there are people smarter than even you who disagree with him.
*edit: corrected typo
Fake quote is fake.
---------------------------------------------------
Thanks for wishing me good luck; it took less than 20 seconds to find one:
The Harvard Theological Review
Vol. 66, # 1
Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List; by Albert Sundberg
"Fake quote is fake."
Whatever. The idea that the Bibles Constantine commissioned somehow established the Canon is garbage. The four gospels had been agreed as being the canonical ones long before Constantine. And Eusebius' writings (you know, the editor of those Constantinian Bibles) show that the canon of the other NT works was still not established in Constantine's time. It was at least another 30 years after Constantine's death that we see any uniformity in the Western Empire and it took even longer in the East.
"Thanks for wishing me good luck; it took less than 20 seconds to find one:"
Ummm, no. Sundberg does not argue that the four gospels hadn't been accepted as the canonical ones long before Constantine was born or that Constantine's sponsorship of copies of Bibles by Eusebius and Athanasius somehow established a wider set canon. He does argue that the Muratorian Canon should be dated to the fourth century and not the second, but its reference to "The Shepherd of Hermas" being written by the brother of Bishop Pius of Rome "most recently, in our time" fixes the date some time not long after 155 AD. Attempts by Sunberg and, more recently, Hahneman, to explain this reference some other way to sustain a later date have not convinced anyone else in the field. And neither Sundberg nor Hahneman agree with what you're trying to argue about Constantine either.
It helps to have actually *read* the relevant scholarly material rather than just desperately Googling around to try to avoid conceding you're wrong. You're wrong.
So far you have told us that the canon was established before Constantine, 30 years after Constantine, and hundreds of years after Constantine. If we are lucky maybe we can get hundreds of years before Constantine before this thread is finished, for some symmetry.
"So far you have told us that the canon was established before Constantine, 30 years after Constantine, and hundreds of years after Constantine"
What I've actually noted is the scholarly consensus that (i) the four gospels found in the NT today were established as the canonical ones long BEFORE Constantine and (ii) the rest of the NT canon was not settled until some time AFTER Constantine. So the idea that the canon was somehow established BY Constantine (directly or indirectly via the production of Bibles by Eusebius) is clearly wrong.
Understand now?
If you can produce any scholar or historian who says otherwise, now would be a great time to finally do so. Here's Bart Ehrman's summary of the scholarly position again:
"The historical reality is that the emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the formation of the canon of scripture: he did not choose which books to include or exclude and he did not order the destruction of the gospels that were left out of the canon. …. The formation of the New Testament canon was a long and drawn out process that began centuries before Constantine and did not conclude until long after he was dead."
That conclusion does not follow from (ii).
--------------------------
That is a strawman.
"That conclusion does not follow from (ii)."
Yes, it does. If the canon was somehow established by Constantine, we should find uniformity or something like it from his time onwards. We don't. We find nothing like that until well AFTER his time.
"That is a strawman."
Ehrman's quote covers a range of crackpot theories about Constantine and the Canon, including several you don't seem to be supporting. The operative parts of his quote are:
"The historical reality is that the emperor Constantine had nothing to do with the formation of the canon of scripture …. The formation of the New Testament canon was a long and drawn out process that began centuries before Constantine and did not conclude until long after he was dead."
If you think this leading scholar is wrong then please cite and quote the scholars who disagree with him. If you can't, please explain why you're clinging to an idea rejected by expert scholarship and give the evidential basis for your belief in this marginal idea.
We atheists are meant to be the rational ones. Unfortunately, I keep finding supposed rationalists who clutch at crackpot ideas because it suits an emotional bias against religion. That isn't rational. Try rationalism.
Pages