But now the goalposts have moved. It was "scholarly consensus" and now it's "college professors who I studied with", who you again aren't citing and is certainly not a consensus.
I definitely understand that ChatGPT isn't the be-all-end-all, but it's certainly gotta be a step ahead of "trust me bro".
Let me be clear though - My argument isn't even that you are wrong or right, but simply that it's not a consensus, which is the crux of your entire logical fallacy towards atheists not being able to explain broad common themes between religion.
I don't understand where we are proving them to be so similar that it couldn't possibly be recreated independently or passed over via broad motifs over time.
Like, the entire connection is being made by us redefining the words to find a common ground, while intentionally ignoring all opposing evidence and differences.
Your Quote:
But this is an interpretation, not a fact.
You might argue it's a fact and I anticipate that you are going to retort that "scholars unanimously agree this is some undeniable truth", but as we just learned via ChatGPT - it's certainly disputed by other scholars, at best.
And I want to reiterate again in bold here, I'm not even trying to take a stance against religion here, but when you ask how atheists reconcile the differences, I believe the reason (not really trying to speak for them but trying to steel man their side) is because there are basic assumptions we are making that I think many atheists would dispute.
Don't argue in bad faith its so off-putting I usually choose not to engage with you. The scholars I studied with said it was consensus that scholars do not believe that theological crossover on that point of the trinity took place. Don't say I've moved the goal posts disingenuously. I didn't... you just did not understand my point.
Most of the quotes you quoted did not come through for me. Can you see them in your post because I cannot?
You also seem to not understand my argument at all because you just asked how can we know that they didn't come to those positions independently??!!! It's my entire position that they WERE come to independently!!! Because there is a somewhat UNIVERSAL consciousness being uncovered here although there are many levels to it and nuances within it.
Also not to be rude but if you don't understand that the Trinity is being consciousness and love... father, son, holy Spirit, then you don't know the first thing about theology and should not be discussing similarities or differences between the Trinity and Hinduism's Trinity. Any beginning theology book will teach it as such and it has been understood for nearly all of Christian history..,. If you don't know these very basic things, you're not qualified to have this discussion and shouldn't be jumping in. The Trinity is pure being consciousness and love and that is not in dispute.... and is a common fact of theology not even reserved for scholarly people... This principle is used as a first principle in nearly all theological discussions even. You could try chatgpt (lol) and see if it has theology for
beginners by frank sheed as a reference for this commonly known fact of theology.
Also, just to be sure you understand my position, I am not arguing that these are ideas people came up with....my argument rests on the fact that most theology comes from direct experience and revelation which is just the revelation of direct experience. People directly experience this reality and that is what is known as God. It's not philosophy that brings us to this place. It is experience with God. I have experienced both saccitananda and the Trinity from Christianity directly many times over the years although not permanently as the saints do. I am qualified to discuss these two both through direct experience and through theological argument.
My position on atheists agnostics and believers is thus--- it is ok to be any one of these and reason can bring you to any one of these positions. but it is the religion of scientism that goes too far and requires disbelief based on a lack of evidence. absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. and in light of the plethora of evidence for the existence of God (millions and millions of people's direct experience) it is totally reasonable to believe in God based on that personal experience or even the massive amount of anecdotal evidence provided by millions of people across religions. notice i said
evidence and NOT
proof.
from that position it can be argued that the atheist who argues against the existence of God is on the most shaky ground because he or she is just arguing from a lack of evidence AND not including massive amounts of evidence in his or her inquiry and arguments. the agnostic comes in next in reasonableness in my position because he or she does not hold a firm stance either way. the believer is obviously the MOST grounded in reason as they are basing their belief in their own experience with God or with others they know and trust who have experiences or deeper experiences along the spectrum of depth associated with mystical experience.
