Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Will Bouwman]

What in the fossil record would compel me to conclude otherwise?

Well, you are siding with the cladists. The way we must categorize is simply by last common ancestor nodes, period.

It's been a while, so for context:

If I were simply to believe my eyes, I would look at, oh, the fossil record for instance, and conclude that humans and other great apes are descended from a common ancestor.

If you'd actually looked at the fossil record, I promise you wouldn't conclude that.

What in the fossil record would compel me to conclude otherwise?

So:

But the Phentists and the Evolutionary Taxonomists, while recognizing that the same genetics, see humans as not belonging in the same group.

In which case my question becomes: is there something in the fossil record that phenetists or evolutionary taxonomists claim as evidence that humans and other great apes are not descended from a common ancestor?

[Fanman]

My ideas are sourced by sound mind and body, honest inquiry, passionate curiosity and a commitment to reason and the search for truth, sir.

Good day to you.

Good day to you too, sir. The reason I asked is that your ideas are very strong. And they differ from my experience. I don't know if there's a God; I used to be a Christian for many years, but I eventually became agnostic, so I know my way around these types of discussions, and I know Christianity well also. I have experienced what could be called ‘benevolence’ from what we call the universe.

Let’s say that people haven't done more than what they should for me, and I have been let down on more than one occasion. I think that is a common experience. There have been quite a few occasions when things have gone my way against the odds, or even when I have fallen through my mistakes, I manage to get back on my feet, with little to no support. I have been reasonably comfortable in life — when the circumstances didn’t seem to permit that. I don't want to go on too much. Or go into detail. But when I look at things through an experiential lens, I wouldn’t stretch my personal experiences so far as to say that the universe is “benevolent” — while acknowledging there’s a lot I don’t know at that scale, I would say that the universe has balance.

I acknowledge there are many circumstances we can call "evils" in the world, but I attribute that directly to humankind rather than a “God”. There are a few reasons for me doing that.

1. Purportedly, God exists in a different ontology from ours and is a maximal being. Without knowledge of how that state differs from ours, we cannot (absolutely) know whether human moral and ethical framing exists (or doesn’t exist) within that state. So, by applying human morality to such a being (which is not a unified standard), we may be operating outside the category it (human morality) actually applies to.

2. What we know for sure is that people are responsible for what we call "evil" (not including natural disasters) that occur in the world; why shift that accountability to God on the basis that he allows it to happen? Especially when he has a plan of salvation in place for humanity?

3. Purportedly (in the Bible), God gave human beings a moral system to adhere to, so it is logical to infer that a maximal being, provided we don’t know the full scope of God’s morality, in terms of what "he" will permit and not permit, is plausibly a moral agent. So it seems to me to be a hasty generalisation to assume that he/she/it is evil or "non-caring" because giving human beings a moral system and a plan for salvation are plausibly indicative of a moral agent. I don’t claim to know that God is a moral agent, but from a human perspective based on what he’s purported to have done in the Bible, I think my suggestion is reasonable.

My intention is not to defend God. I am doing my best to reason objectively based on the reality of the evidence we have available. My personal feelings are not included here.

[FlashDangerpants]

My ideas are sourced by sound mind and body, honest inquiry, passionate curiosity and a commitment to reason and the search for truth, sir.

Good day to you.

Good day to you too, sir. The reason I asked is that your ideas are very strong. And they differ from my experience. I don't know if there's a God; I used to be a Christian for many years, but I eventually became agnostic, so I know my way around these types of discussions, and I know Christianity well also. I have experienced what could be called ‘benevolence’ from what we call the universe.

Let’s say that people haven't done more than what they should for me, and I have been let down on more than one occasion. I think that is a common experience. There have been quite a few occasions when things have gone my way against the odds, or even when I have fallen through my mistakes, I manage to get back on my feet, with little to no support. I have been reasonably comfortable in life — when the circumstances didn’t seem to permit that. I don't want to go on too much. Or go into detail. But when I look at things through an experiential lens, I wouldn’t stretch my personal experiences so far as to say that the universe is “benevolent” — while acknowledging there’s a lot I don’t know at that scale, I would say that the universe has balance.

I acknowledge there are many circumstances we can call "evils" in the world, but I attribute that directly to humankind rather than a “God”. There are a few reasons for me doing that.

1. Purportedly, God exists in a different ontology from ours and is a maximal being. Without knowledge of how that state differs from ours, we cannot (absolutely) know whether human moral and ethical framing exists (or doesn’t exist) within that state. So, by applying human morality to such a being (which is not a unified standard), we may be operating outside the category it (human morality) actually applies to.

2. What we know for sure is that people are responsible for what we call "evil" (not including natural disasters) that occur in the world; why shift that accountability to God on the basis that he allows it to happen? Especially when he has a plan of salvation in place for humanity?

3. Purportedly (in the Bible), God gave human beings a moral system to adhere to, so it is logical to infer that a maximal being, provided we don’t know the full scope of God’s morality, in terms of what "he" will permit and not permit, is plausibly a moral agent. So it seems to me to be a hasty generalisation to assume that he/she/it is evil or "non-caring" because giving human beings a moral system and a plan for salvation are plausibly indicative of a moral agent. I don’t claim to know that God is a moral agent, but from a human perspective based on what he’s purported to have done in the Bible, I think my suggestion is reasonable.

My intention is not to defend God. I am doing my best to reason objectively based on the reality of the evidence we have available. My personal feelings are not included here.

The sudden appearance of the word "objectively" at the end of all that "it seems to me" reasoning should be reported to the nearest police officer as an offence of breaking and entry.

[Fanman]

My ideas are sourced by sound mind and body, honest inquiry, passionate curiosity and a commitment to reason and the search for truth, sir.

Good day to you.

Good day to you too, sir. The reason I asked is that your ideas are very strong. And they differ from my experience. I don't know if there's a God; I used to be a Christian for many years, but I eventually became agnostic, so I know my way around these types of discussions, and I know Christianity well also. I have experienced what could be called ‘benevolence’ from what we call the universe.

Let’s say that people haven't done more than what they should for me, and I have been let down on more than one occasion. I think that is a common experience. There have been quite a few occasions when things have gone my way against the odds, or even when I have fallen through my mistakes, I manage to get back on my feet, with little to no support. I have been reasonably comfortable in life — when the circumstances didn’t seem to permit that. I don't want to go on too much. Or go into detail. But when I look at things through an experiential lens, I wouldn’t stretch my personal experiences so far as to say that the universe is “benevolent” — while acknowledging there’s a lot I don’t know at that scale, I would say that the universe has balance.

I acknowledge there are many circumstances we can call "evils" in the world, but I attribute that directly to humankind rather than a “God”. There are a few reasons for me doing that.

1. Purportedly, God exists in a different ontology from ours and is a maximal being. Without knowledge of how that state differs from ours, we cannot (absolutely) know whether human moral and ethical framing exists (or doesn’t exist) within that state. So, by applying human morality to such a being (which is not a unified standard), we may be operating outside the category it (human morality) actually applies to.

2. What we know for sure is that people are responsible for what we call "evil" (not including natural disasters) that occur in the world; why shift that accountability to God on the basis that he allows it to happen? Especially when he has a plan of salvation in place for humanity?

3. Purportedly (in the Bible), God gave human beings a moral system to adhere to, so it is logical to infer that a maximal being, provided we don’t know the full scope of God’s morality, in terms of what "he" will permit and not permit, is plausibly a moral agent. So it seems to me to be a hasty generalisation to assume that he/she/it is evil or "non-caring" because giving human beings a moral system and a plan for salvation are plausibly indicative of a moral agent. I don’t claim to know that God is a moral agent, but from a human perspective based on what he’s purported to have done in the Bible, I think my suggestion is reasonable.

My intention is not to defend God. I am doing my best to reason objectively based on the reality of the evidence we have available. My personal feelings are not included here.

The sudden appearance of the word "objectively" at the end of all that "it seems to me" reasoning should be reported to the nearest police officer as an offence of breaking and entry.

Thank you for your response, Flash. I have recently and independently checked my post you're referring to with Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini. Both report/recoginse that my post was aiming for objectivity. I can share the AIs' output on the forum if you prefer or if you have any doubts in that respect. I respect your opinion. However, in this case, since both models' findings were so clear, I agree with the two independent AIs that I used. I mean no offense to you. Thank you for your engagement.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Creation is marked by all kinds of irreducible complexities, from cosmic scale dependent complexity (like the size of our moon being perfect for producing the right gravitational effects on oceans, for example), to triadic symbiosis (like the interdependent relationship between parasites, snails and birds or cows) to the complexity of DNA strands. The idea that this irreducible complexity is nothing but the product of time and chance is so utterly implausible as to be, on the very surface, quite ridiculous, and the indicative evidence for design so strong that the Creator hypothesis has to be regarded, by any sane and informed individual, as the default hypothesis.

There's really not other reasonable place to start, actually. And it certainly explains why every ancient human society in history has started, not with a hypothesis of something like Atheism or spontaneous generation, but with the God or gods hypothesis. It's just far too obvious to miss. It takes all kinds of mental gymnastics and sophisticated re-explaining to convince oneself of anything else: which is why the whole no-God hypothesis has been such a late sell in civilizational history. Even if one opts for it, one has to admit that it's not at all plausible prima facie.

It has always seemed to me that if the starting point were all that you name here, that the creator god that one would necessarily deduce (from the evidence) would be quite radically different from most of the ‘pictures’ of god or gods that people in pre-scientific cultures envisioned. It is quite easy notice that when examined scientifically and mathematically, that the created world and cosmos with such astounding organization are ‘impossible’ without an Organizer and without an Organizational Pattern.

But really, after you have arrived at that proposition, and when you then attempt a theology and an ethical and moral system (on the basis of science truths) there is really no way to construct the sort of god that Christianity has constructed.

The Logos of nature is not, nor can it really be, the Logos of our theological devices.

Therefore, the picture that you are using is not really useful at all for your own purposes. The “immense and astounding complexity” proposition is stopped in it’s own tracks. It cannot really serve existing theological models. Yet it is “forced” to assume an apologetic role.

Let’s imagine that “scientist” who had no theological training which had installed in him the Christian Picture. He is a “tabula rasa” but has arrived at ‘impossible complexity” and must the suppose an Original Organizer. Really, what sort of god and theology would he extrapolate?

[FlashDangerpants]

Good day to you too, sir. The reason I asked is that your ideas are very strong. And they differ from my experience. I don't know if there's a God; I used to be a Christian for many years, but I eventually became agnostic, so I know my way around these types of discussions, and I know Christianity well also. I have experienced what could be called ‘benevolence’ from what we call the universe.

Let’s say that people haven't done more than what they should for me, and I have been let down on more than one occasion. I think that is a common experience. There have been quite a few occasions when things have gone my way against the odds, or even when I have fallen through my mistakes, I manage to get back on my feet, with little to no support. I have been reasonably comfortable in life — when the circumstances didn’t seem to permit that. I don't want to go on too much. Or go into detail. But when I look at things through an experiential lens, I wouldn’t stretch my personal experiences so far as to say that the universe is “benevolent” — while acknowledging there’s a lot I don’t know at that scale, I would say that the universe has balance.

I acknowledge there are many circumstances we can call "evils" in the world, but I attribute that directly to humankind rather than a “God”. There are a few reasons for me doing that.

1. Purportedly, God exists in a different ontology from ours and is a maximal being. Without knowledge of how that state differs from ours, we cannot (absolutely) know whether human moral and ethical framing exists (or doesn’t exist) within that state. So, by applying human morality to such a being (which is not a unified standard), we may be operating outside the category it (human morality) actually applies to.

2. What we know for sure is that people are responsible for what we call "evil" (not including natural disasters) that occur in the world; why shift that accountability to God on the basis that he allows it to happen? Especially when he has a plan of salvation in place for humanity?

3. Purportedly (in the Bible), God gave human beings a moral system to adhere to, so it is logical to infer that a maximal being, provided we don’t know the full scope of God’s morality, in terms of what "he" will permit and not permit, is plausibly a moral agent. So it seems to me to be a hasty generalisation to assume that he/she/it is evil or "non-caring" because giving human beings a moral system and a plan for salvation are plausibly indicative of a moral agent. I don’t claim to know that God is a moral agent, but from a human perspective based on what he’s purported to have done in the Bible, I think my suggestion is reasonable.

My intention is not to defend God. I am doing my best to reason objectively based on the reality of the evidence we have available. My personal feelings are not included here.

The sudden appearance of the word "objectively" at the end of all that "it seems to me" reasoning should be reported to the nearest police officer as an offence of breaking and entry.

Thank you for your response, Flash. I have recently and independently checked my post you're referring to with Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini. Both report/recoginse that my post was aiming for objectivity. I can share the AIs' output on the forum if you prefer or if you have any doubts in that respect. I respect your opinion. However, in this case, since both models' findings were so clear, I agree with the two independent AIs that I used. I mean no offense to you. Thank you for your engagement.

LOL. Ok then.

But please don't share the slop, it's sort of against the rules and it won't make you look any smarter either way.

[Immanuel Can]

Creation is marked by all kinds of irreducible complexities, from cosmic scale dependent complexity (like the size of our moon being perfect for producing the right gravitational effects on oceans, for example), to triadic symbiosis (like the interdependent relationship between parasites, snails and birds or cows) to the complexity of DNA strands. The idea that this irreducible complexity is nothing but the product of time and chance is so utterly implausible as to be, on the very surface, quite ridiculous, and the indicative evidence for design so strong that the Creator hypothesis has to be regarded, by any sane and informed individual, as the default hypothesis.

There's really not other reasonable place to start, actually. And it certainly explains why every ancient human society in history has started, not with a hypothesis of something like Atheism or spontaneous generation, but with the God or gods hypothesis. It's just far too obvious to miss. It takes all kinds of mental gymnastics and sophisticated re-explaining to convince oneself of anything else: which is why the whole no-God hypothesis has been such a late sell in civilizational history. Even if one opts for it, one has to admit that it's not at all plausible prima facie.

It has always seemed to me that if the starting point were all that you name here, that the creator god that one would necessarily deduce (from the evidence) would be quite radically different from most of the ‘pictures’ of god or gods that people in pre-scientific cultures envisioned.

This is probably true. It certainly accounts for the wide variety of false "gods" that the human race has generated. It's impossible to miss the evidence that if, as I believe, there is a true God, that fact has not stopped many people from speculating wildly about His identity. However, there are two ways that can happen: one, because God had been faulty in His self-revelation in Creation, or two, because men are faulty in their judgments. Which one is at fault here, we can decide.

Romans 1 says that men should know about the existence of God, but refuse to. It says there are basic deductions that can be made from the first facts of Creation: these include such things as the existence and power of God, as well as the moral insights of the conscience. There's enough in that, says Romans, to leave men "without excuse" for disbelieving in God. But I take your point that a precise and detailed knowledge of the Creator would require more than those basic insights.

Fortunately, the Biblical account does not stop at the mere facts of Creation. In addition to knowledge of the existence and power of God, and the basic promptings of conscience, God has not left Himself without much more detailed and precise self-revelation. But that self-revelation to mankind is not drawn merely from some set of human deductions. It's explicit. It's propositional. It's been spoken. It's written.

And were that not enough, the Biblical account is that God has sent His Son to be the Light of the World, and to make such a full knowledge of God available that men can actually come to know Him relationally, and to have very detailed knowledge of His character, purposes and intentions for them. And they have details about salvation and reconciliation with God, about morality, about faith, and about the future.

Now, if one were, as you suggest, to "attempt a theology and an ethical and moral system (on the basis of science truths)," then it would be fair to conclude "there is really no way to construct the sort of god that Christianity has constructed," perhaps. But it is not the case that faith has been abandoned by God to have to work out its theology from mere "science truths," as you put it. It has been granted a much more definitive revelation, consummately in the person of Jesus Christ.

And one can accept that testimony, or one can reject it. But one cannot reject it without also rejecting the sort of fuller knowledge of God that you point out to be lacking in human deductions from scientific facts or from mere natural theology. It's available: it's just not always accepted.

[Fanman]

When engaged in discussions about the existence of God, which I have done for many years on different philosophy forums, it has always distilled down to faith. I don't perceive any epistemic issues with faith, as it is part of a salvation plan linked to a religion. People are allowed to have hope. I accept that scope even though I am no longer part of it due to sustained critical thinking. If we're using logic, in ambiguous terms, the "does God exist?" question distills down to: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Meaning we can never meaningfully know, no matter what angle we approach the question from logically — that's why we end up with faith. But that is not the end of the enquiry, as one answer to that specific question/quip is: What if the angels are microscopic? In that case, we can (in a colloquial sense) approach that particular question with logic and arithmetic, as it is an issue of scale. Maybe there's a likewise short-and-straight answer to the "does God exist?" question too, and we just haven't found it yet? Either way, I think the possibility that the question can be answered logically justifies continuing epistemic enquiry. I mean, the fact is that we don't have a substantive logical answer either way, but both enquiry and discussion continue relentlessly.

[Immanuel Can]

Other than the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral? I'm all ears.

Well, you already dismiss the mathematical-empirical and logical proofs for the existence of a First Cause. You declare them unconvincing, but for no reason...

That is not true. For example:

Firstly, it is based on an unsound premise - that the world is causal. As I said, quantum mechanics seriously challenges that assumption.

I see no reason to conclude that. Quantum mechanics does not seem to imperil causality at all.

But let's suppose some other theory did. What would that issue in? Only that science itself would be impossible. For we would be unable to deduce from any effect at all that there was any particular cause, or to assume that a phenomenon we observed and tested could ever be expected to be reproduced in the next experiment. In fact, technology would be impossible, as well; because instead of being the result of predictable technological moves, things would simply "pop into" and "pop out of" existence by something like quantum randomness.

But that's not at all what we observe. And science and technology clearly do work. Which means that causality is not only still in play, but very much reliable, and that we, most surprisingly, have brains tuned to detect its currents and to utilize it to act on our environment.

Secondly, I'm not convinced the leap from numbers to reality is valid.

I agree: you seem unconvinced. And yet, it does work; so I don't know what I can add to your awareness of that. I've tried my best to illuminate it to you.

...it's unsurprising that you've given the same unthinking treatment to things like the Kalaam...

Well, if you understood the Kalam argument, you would understand that the second premise is unsound,

Please explain.

...and the moral argument...

The basic argument of which is circular.
P1 If there were no god, there would be no objective morals
P2 There are objective morals
Therefore God exists.

Let's suppose that's a fair gloss on the whole argument. I think it's not, but let's go there anyway. Then go with the opposite conclusion, and see what happens. Go with "there are no objective morals," and you'll find out it means "there are no such things as any real morals at all."

If you can face that conclusion and live with it, you'll be fine. But I've never met a person who could.

I'm simply convinced you don't understand any of them.

The difference is that I can look at them dispassionately.

Perhaps. But since I have no "passion" about them either, I don't know that that gives you any advantage.

They might be an aid to your faith, but they are not proof.

Well, as others have pointed out here, "proof" is a mathematical term, not one appropriate to human empirical knowledge. All human empirical knowledge is probabilistic, not absolute. We go with the hypothesis for which the most and best evidence exists; we are never able to lock onto a certainty so final that it can no longer be doubted in extremis. And that is why faith, rather than being some "religious" speciality, is actually at the root of all human knowing.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's impossible to miss the evidence that if, as I believe, there is a true God, that fact has not stopped many people from speculating wildly about His identity. However, there are two ways that can happen: one, because God had been faulty in His self-revelation in Creation, or two, because men are faulty in their judgments. Which one is at fault here, we can decide.

Within the traditions of the Occident, at least as I understand Christianity’s origins, the Christian revelation was received by the Greek and the Greek mind which interpreted God by way of the concept of Logos. Obviously a wide-ranging word and a profound notion: the intuition that the Cosmos is intelligible, decipherable. It has a structure which shows coherent design (logos) And simultaneously the life we have — literally existence & being — are similarly intelligible. Unless I am mistaken that is a good description of how Christian philosophy understood the Advent of Jesus Christ in the Greek world, and thus at the foundations of Christianity theology.

But at least in some sense, the concept of such a God as Christianity defines, is a construct of the reason. It does not derive from “the facts of the world” but from an operation of the mind, the intelligence, or also ‘the soul’ which, also in those early conceptions, is called up to “answer” the question of what ultimately God must be. But still, you cannot get God (of this total sort) from the natural world itself. There has to be a whole other ‘operation’ of the intelligence as it were.

[Immanuel Can]

It's impossible to miss the evidence that if, as I believe, there is a true God, that fact has not stopped many people from speculating wildly about His identity. However, there are two ways that can happen: one, because God had been faulty in His self-revelation in Creation, or two, because men are faulty in their judgments. Which one is at fault here, we can decide.

Within the traditions of the Occident, at least as I understand Christianity’s origins, the Christian revelation was received by the Greek and the Greek mind which interpreted God by way of the concept of Logos.

Well, this completely forgets the Hebrew origins. More than half of the Christian Scriptures are Tanakh, Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic, and the Greek manuscripts came only later, and in evident connection with Tanakh.

Obviously a wide-ranging word and a profound notion: the intuition that the Cosmos is intelligible, decipherable. It has a structure which shows coherent design (logos) And simultaneously the life we have — literally existence & being — are similarly intelligible. Unless I am mistaken that is a good description of how Christian philosophy understood the Advent of Jesus Christ in the Greek world, and thus at the foundations of Christianity theology.

The "logos" conception actually begins in Genesis 1. So again, it's the Hebrew roots that are the source of the Greek.

But at least in some sense, the concept of such a God as Christianity defines, is a construct of the reason. It does not derive from “the facts of the world” but from an operation of the mind, the intelligence, or also ‘the soul’ which, also in those early conceptions, is called up to “answer” the question of what ultimately God must be.

Well, again...we can't erase the Hebrew roots from any understanding of the Greek parts of the NT. Apart from the Hebrew origins, there actually would be no such manuscripts.

It's always puzzled me that people have avoided the expression "Judeo-Christian." I understand why anti-semites to it...they don't want to give any respect or consideration to anything Jewish. And I understand the Jewish refusal to associate themselves with the NT, since they reject their Messiah and resent the Christian extension of their tradition. But it seems both unwise of them -- not strategic -- and untrue for anybody to imagine a Christianity divorced from its profound indebtedness to the Hebrew roots. One who studies the NT cannot possibly miss that, I would suggest, except by a massive effort of ignorance and contrary will.

But still, you cannot get God (of this total sort) from the natural world itself.

What you can get is exactly what Romans 1 says you can: that God exists, and that He is powerful, and something of His moral nature. These are very basic realizations, to be sure, and do not fully exposit the precise nature of the God who exists. But as I have also suggested, God has not left us without much more than that.

[Dubious]

Maybe there's a likewise short-and-straight answer to the "does God exist?" question too, and we just haven't found it yet? Either way, I think the possibility that the question can be answered logically justifies continuing epistemic enquiry. I mean, the fact is that we don't have a substantive logical answer either way, but both enquiry and discussion continue relentlessly.

If we are compelled to keep asking, since there's no direct revelation of god's existence, while logic remains impotent in extracting a god from a background of unconditional silence, at what point may the question itself become superfluous? Even if there were such an entity, why must it remain for humans to highlight a mystery of that which prefers to remain unknown and which no human has the power to reveal. If there were such an entity, I imagine it would be by its own entry and not by any power we have to make known which manifests it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, this completely forgets the Hebrew origins. More than half of the Christian Scriptures are Tanakh, Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic, and the Greek manuscripts came only later, and in evident connection with Tanakh.

You and I will inevitably run into the same blocks in our understanding. I am, if the truth be told (and to use your terminology), or better put I subscribe to an “anti-Semitic” outlook. That is, someone born in Jewish culture, but who transcended it altogether.

What I mean by that (I borrow your word anti-Semitic but I only mean Judaic-rejecting or deliberately transcending) is not what you mean, but rather that both Jesus and Christianity are thorough rejections of the Judaic matrix. And so it should and must be. The two are not meant to be joined and they are certainly not “married”. Christianity is in the sense a pagan and also a Greek philosophical, religious, and spiritual undertaking. It must necessarily reject the judaizing shadow of Palestinian Judaism.

I am aware that in a hundred fundamental ways what I express here seems to you fundamentally heretical and 180 opposite the views you hold. I think this is one of the reasons the Picture of God in Jewish texts (Yahweh) is incomparable with the god-concept carried by the figure of Jesus. And this explains a good part of why the Jewish power-structure rejected the person of Jesus. And, in fact, can only still thoroughly reject the figure and the philosophy that attends it. I am a total and adamant supersessionist. And the Jewish attempt to reconvert the figure of Jesus back into an observant even Talmudic Jew is utterly perverse.

But don’t worry much, I accept that you don’t see things even remotely like that.

The "logos" conception actually begins in Genesis 1. So again, it's the Hebrew roots that are the source of the Greek.

I do not believe these notions, at base, are the same. They are similar perhaps, but Greek (pagan if you will) logos is a far superior and even a transcendent concept. It literally encompasses the universe and all possible worlds. And technically it is the basis of Occidental science which is pagan, original and non-endemic to Judaism.

The Greek concepts of logos antecede that of Judea. It is a very different order of ‘seeing’.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's always puzzled me that people have avoided the expression "Judeo-Christian." I understand why anti-semites to it...they don't want to give any respect or consideration to anything Jewish. And I understand the Jewish refusal to associate themselves with the NT, since they reject their Messiah and resent the Christian extension of their tradition. But it seems both unwise of them -- not strategic -- and untrue for anybody to imagine a Christianity divorced from its profound indebtedness to the Hebrew roots. One who studies the NT cannot possibly miss that, I would suggest, except by a massive effort of ignorance and contrary will.

Who do you think rejects it? It is very very common and indeed an “established idea”. And there is, indeed, so much of Jewish concept that filters into Hellenic Christianity that it is senseless to deny it (though I am not aware that this is attempted). But in reality that which is called Christianity is extremely synthetic in the sense of amalgamating. The weirdest part is the strict Jewish rejection of any and all influences it understands to be “foreign” and goyish. I do not see Hellenic philosophical Christianity as suffering that defect or paranoia. Because reason and logos are part-and-parcel of a universalistic logos-concept.

Though it is certainly problematic, it is easy for me to understand why (permit this usage:) the Greek mind seeks to divorce itself from Hebrew control-tendencies and that tendency toward and tone of ultra-possessiveness. Judaism is a domineering religion and it encourages a domineering psychology.

I think that we are “profoundly indebted” not just to one particular sect or current as it pertains to the ancient world. Ideas that originated in Egypt long before Hebrew or Greek came on the scene can just as well inspire that sense of “profound indebtedness”. As you know (if you remember previous conversations) I became aware that huge segments of idea and philosophical outlook that the Hebrews made their”exclusive possession” came actually from the Nile Valley.

The process of “seeing things clearly” is a fraught endeavor and can only be carried out by mature intellects.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What you can get is exactly what Romans 1 says you can: that God exists, and that He is powerful, and something of His moral nature.

But everybody gets that. That is a relatively easy position to get to. But I assert that it is what one does with that understanding, after the fact of arriving at it, that makes all the difference in the world.