Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fafner88]

Talking about historical errors, you said:

The cannon of the New Testament was decided by a council of rich, powerful and scholarly men some time in the 4th century AD.

Here's a quote from the new testament scholar Bart Ehrman on this issue:

The New Testament canon was never ratified by an “ecumenical” council (i.e. a meeting of bishops from around the Christian world) in the early church. But there were several smaller synods and councils that pronounced judgment on which books should be accepted as canonical Scripture. Evidently the first to ratify the twenty-seven book canon propounded by Athanasius, and accepted by most churches still today, was a Synod in Hippo, North Africa, in 393 ce, where the greatest orthodox theologian of antiquity, Augustine of Hippo, threw his weight behind Athanasius’s list and pushed its acceptance . . . Even this synod’s affirmation of the canon was not universally binding, as indicated in the proceedings themselves, where it is noted that the church across the sea (i.e., Rome, on the other side of the Mediterranean) was to be consulted on the matter. And, as it turns out, different churches in other parts of the world never did agree on this twenty-seven book canon, despite its overwhelming acceptance in both Western and Eastern branches of Christendom

From "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It Into the New Testament" p.341

And also:

. . . even though the contours of the canon were still very much in flux in the early Christian centuries, there was a broad agreement in proto-orthodox circles that the canon was to include the four Gospels, the writings of Paul, and several other apostolic texts. (p.330)

So as I claimed earlier, there was no council which dictated to all christians what books should be in the new testament, and most of the books of the new testament were already regarded as scripture by many christian communities before any "councils of rich man". And according to Ehrman, the NT cannon wasn't officially ratified by the catholic church until the 16th century. So I would like to know which 4th century council you've referred to?

To quote again:

There was no official, churchwide pronouncement on the matter until the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century (which, as a Roman Catholic council, was binding only on Roman Catholics). But by then, the twenty-seven books were already “set” as Scripture. Thus, the canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation. Still, by the beginning of the fifth century, most churches in the Christian world agreed on its contours. (p.231)

From "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew"

[Supine]

The cannon of the New Testament was decided by a council of rich, powerful and scholarly men some time in the 4th century AD. They met to settle the problem of what material should be included, and what should not. At this time there were many different accounts, letters, and Gospels, all with differing versions of early Christian events. It's very political, and all about what best agreed with these men's views at the time. This is established by research, history and archaeology. How can anyone think that the New Testament is an eye-witness account of the times of Jesus, or that it is the word of God, when it is plainly the work of thousands of scribes translating various versions in different centuries - and all voted upon by a council of rich, biased men?

It was decided upon at a Council of Bishops in North Africa circa the 300s AD.

The Catholic Church still has Councils like that of Trent and Vatican II. The latter being a more perplexing one... as Councils like that of Trent and the one that decided what would go into making up the canon of the New Testament are usually formed to settle disputes and give clarity to what the Church affirms and teaches.

Catholics believed in the position of the Pope in Rome as that of the Apostolic successor of Peter before the Council of Trent irrespective if non-Catholics think that's the first moment in history Catholics began having that teaching and belief.

The Early Church read all sorts of Gnostic texts (I've read some of them myself just our of curiosity but not devotion)... this is nothing new to Catholics (well... it is to many lay Catholics that know little about Church teaching and history).

Some of the earliest texts in the Bible were written not long after Jesus died. They were written while the Apostles were still alive. This in contrast to Buddhist sacred text, which if memory serves me correct, the earliest one's being composed after the birth of Christ: AD or CE.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not teach "we believe because of the Bible," no, they both teach "we believe because of the Church, which is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.... The Bible derives its authority from the Church. The Church does not derive its authority from the Bible.

Protestants believe the opposite. Which is interesting given Lutheran's and other "high" Protestant churches recite the Nicene Creed.

Both the Apostles Creed and NIcene Creed place authority in the Church--the Bible is not even mentioned. These are the basic professions of the Christian faith. Nota bene, the word "catholic" (universal) is explicitly mentioned and not the word "Bible." That is to say, belief in the "catholic."

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

http://apostles-creed.com/index.html

It's precisely because of archeological evidence I believe in the Latin Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches extending into antiquity. They all are in possession of too much physical material we'll call artifacts. From pieces of cloth to actual buildings. They have skeletal remains and tombs of the Earliest Christians. Countries are possession of material artifacts evidencing the recounts of their origins and developments too. Neither New York City or the USA looks physically or juridically like it did during the late 1700s. Both they like the Church exhibit what science would call the principle of emergence. More complex, sophisticated things evolving from simpler, less complex origins. Did the United States have the FBI during the early 1800s? I think not. But the U.S. Government has grown and become far more sophisticated since its origins.

Along similar lines the Early Church eventually needed to develop a legal system and further develop its theology from that of simply Paul's early theological framework... as the Church grew in population and geographical stretch and as various members began espousing all sorts of differing ideas. Do not Americans espouse differing ideas and end up in courts, and does not the United States Government have a sort of Council meant to settle disputes called "State Supreme Courts" and the highest one the "U.S. Supreme Court"? Except the U.S. Council is fallible as in the case some would say of the Dred Scott decision and as I would say of the gay marriage decisions of recent by the U.S. Supreme Court countering the will of the people in various states democratically deciding to state constitutionally ban gay marriage. If gay marriage did not exist legally in Early USA then is today's USA a fraud of rich, scholarly, elite men and women deceiving the masses into think this is the USA when it really is another country? After all... most the Justices and Senators today I think... are millionaires.

Here is a former award winning CBS journalist who went back to college to obtain a bachelor degree in Catholic theology for his personal mission to reteach orthodox beliefs within the Catholic Church to Catholics that have never been taught much if anything at all of actual Church teachings. He explains the Bible came to being at a Council in North Africa:

He speaks in Nigeria to a small audience of Nigerians:

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I don't believe in any gods, and I don't see the bible as any more reliable a text than the greek myths or fairy tales. However, philosophically, the issue at hand seems to be a moot point. IF I did believe in a single omniscient, omnipotent god, then that would mean that that god chose what text would be in the bible. It couldn't not be the word of god. And thus it wouldn't make sense to believe the bible is half-right, but a little off because humans messed it up a little. Rather, it is either god's word or one of the many religions besides the one true one. (Again, I don't think there is one right religion and all the rest false; I think such is special pleading and find it more reasonable to assume each religion is just like all the other ones: false.)

[Supine]

I don't believe in any gods, and I don't see the bible as any more reliable a text than the greek myths or fairy tales. However, philosophically, the issue at hand seems to be a moot point. IF I did believe in a single omniscient, omnipotent god, then that would mean that that god chose what text would be in the bible. It couldn't not be the word of god. And thus it wouldn't make sense to believe the bible is half-right, but a little off because humans messed it up a little. Rather, it is either god's word or one of the many religions besides the one true one. (Again, I don't think there is one right religion and all the rest false; I think such is special pleading and find it more reasonable to assume each religion is just like all the other ones: false.)

You made a good point, that assuming the world is X way then it's fair and reasonable to assert Y follows from it.

You stated things a much more simple and direct way than I did or could at the time.

Catholics and Orthodox (whether laity or clergy) claim to believe in the Church with Christ as its head and an unbroken chain of successors to the Apostles (and all those spiritual gifts that comes with that), and if they believe in that then it follows that they will believe in the Bible being the inspired work of the Holy Spirit when the successors of the Apostles essentially created that compilation of written texts we call the Bible.

Protestants hold to a different view because they regard the concept of "Church" in a much different way and hold the Bible up as the sole source of all Christian authority--bolstered by graces from the Holy Spirit giving the individual the ability to properly interpret the texts within the Bible.

[enegue]

meme
[meem]
noun
a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition and replication in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.

I believe Richard Dawkins was responsible for introducing this idea, and, if correct, I regard it as his greatest contribution to philosophy. Well done, Richard.

Here's a meme (THE MEME): Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The article on memes at Wikipedia says:
Dawkins used the term to refer to any cultural entity that an observer might consider a replicator. He hypothesised that one could view many cultural entities as replicators, and pointed to melodies, fashions and learned skills as examples. Memes generally replicate through exposure to humans, who have evolved as efficient copiers of information and behaviour. Because humans do not always copy memes perfectly, and because they may refine, combine or otherwise modify them with other memes to create new memes, they can change over time. Dawkins likened the process by which memes survive and change through the evolution of culture to the natural selection of genes in biological evolution.

My questions to you guys are:

1. If you took a mathematical approach (limits) to discovering when THE MEME first appeared: you know, investigate historical data beginning at some point when we know it didn't exist, then move forward to a point when we know it did, and at the same time, investigate historical data, beginning at some point when we know it did exist, then move backward to a point when we know it didn't;
   
   What date would you guys fix as the likely date THE MEME was born?
   
   
2. THE MEME has been copied from one person to another from the time you figure it arrived, to the present date, WITHOUT MUTATION. PROOF: It came to me in the same mutation free state that it began.
   
   How do you guys explain the transmission of THE MEME in uncorrupted form over many, many generations and through many, many cultures?
   
   
3. Memes, like genes, persist because they prove to be advantageous to those who possess them.
   
   Can you guys, as reliable scientific observers of physical phenomena, articulate the advantage you see THE MEME providing to those who possess it?

Cheers,
enegue

[A_Seagull]

you shouldn't present your personal value judgment as historical facts,

Just a question: Do you know the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'?

[Dukedroklar]

All of this confusion could have been avoided if Jesus wrote first hand accounts of the NT. It surprises me that an omniscient, omnipotent deity would overlook such a massive detail.

I wasn't going to get into this one but...

It would not have mattered if he had as it would have been misunderstood and distorted just as the current version is. How many Christians question what they are taught rather than just parrot it to themselves and then to others? I have not met many (if any).

Case in point; Most Christians will readily agree we are in "the end times" or "the last of days" spoken of throughout the bible. Most of them think organized Christianity is on the right track. The bible says that in those days "all the world will be deceived, all but a handful. Even the chosen would be deceived... if that were possible".

If the deception is going to be that pervasive and inescapable, why are they so confident in what they are told is the meaning is actually what it means? A handful could hardly be considered as large as any of the major religions. If that were the case then the words "most will be deceived" would be more accurate and not "ALL but a handful" (which may very well mean that only the chosen (144k) would be that handful).

Anyone familiar with psychology knows that our brains can change the actual sound (heard by the listener) of a spoken word. The change is based on what we anticipate the word will be and is fairly dramatic. The first time I saw and heard this demonstrated was a real eye opener. and much food for thought.

Maybe that's why Jesus replied to the question of "why do you speak in parables" (by the Pharisees) with "so those with eyes may not see and those with ears may not hear".

[Geordie Ross]

All of this confusion could have been avoided if Jesus wrote first hand accounts of the NT. It surprises me that an omniscient, omnipotent deity would overlook such a massive detail.

I wasn't going to get into this one but...

It would not have mattered if he had as it would have been misunderstood and distorted just as the current version is. How many Christians question what they are taught rather than just parrot it to themselves and then to others? I have not met many (if any).

Case in point; Most Christians will readily agree we are in "the end times" or "the last of days" spoken of throughout the bible. Most of them think organized Christianity is on the right track. The bible says that in those days "all the world will be deceived, all but a handful. Even the chosen would be deceived... if that were possible".

If the deception is going to be that pervasive and inescapable, why are they so confident in what they are told is the meaning is actually what it means? A handful could hardly be considered as large as any of the major religions. If that were the case then the words "most will be deceived" would be more accurate and not "ALL but a handful" (which may very well mean that only the chosen (144k) would be that handful).

Anyone familiar with psychology knows that our brains can change the actual sound (heard by the listener) of a spoken word. The change is based on what we anticipate the word will be and is fairly dramatic. The first time I saw and heard this demonstrated was a real eye opener. and much food for thought.

Maybe that's why Jesus replied to the question of "why do you speak in parables" (by the Pharisees) with "so those with eyes may not see and those with ears may not hear".

Good point, I hadn't considered that. However it does ignore the supposed omnipotence of the deity in question. If god did not want his 'words' tampered with, it simply could not be tampered with.

-- Updated April 23rd, 2014, 4:02 am to add the following --

All of this confusion could have been avoided if Jesus wrote first hand accounts of the NT.

We have first hand accounts of the Book of Mormon but you apparently haven't convinced by it. Jesus was a wander oral preacher as was the tradition of the time not a scribe. So what you have their in the gospels is the authentic oral history, right there before your very eyes.

It surprises me that an omniscient, omnipotent deity would overlook such a massive detail.

But the oral tradition is recorded right there in the Bible look along with the accounts of the empty tomb, black and white ink on the page!

Do you believe Joseph Smith?.... Scientology has more credibility than Joseph Smith. As for oral traditions, it liable to human error. Any self respecting creator of the universe would find a far more fitting media for his infallible message than hearsay and Chinese whispers.

[Ruskin]

Do you believe Joseph Smith?....

Hell no, Mormonism is hard polytheism anyway you don't want to get into that. But it shows a first hand written account of Jesus claiming himself to be God incarnate (though he never claimed this) wouldn't necessarily be anytthing that's going to convince you.

Scientology has more credibility than Joseph Smith.

Aliens in volcanoes is more credible than Jesus coming from the planet Kolob?

As for oral traditions, it liable to human error.

There will be errors and artistic licenses in there but what matters is whether or not he was raised, all the accounts agree with that central point. Unless you can build a time a machine is no way to prove whether he did so you will have to take it on a reasonable faith that he did if you want to be a Christian. If don't want to be a Christian then you will have to find an alternative explanation for the accounts.

Any self respecting creator of the universe would find a far more fitting media for his infallible message than hearsay and Chinese whispers.

It's to be expected as he did present himself to mankind in the form of a lowly carpenter and not anyone of any great significance or status at all ,but the first writings of his life were within a couple of decades of his life not hundreds of years later. Saint Paul states that there were people still alive at the time who could confirm they witnessed the resurrection so this is close to a first hand account. You either believe it or you don't, though ideally what you would do is combine this with the rational and philosophical arguments for Gods existence. You can also refer to the Old Testament that portrays someone very much like Jesus or a "suffering Messiah".

[Dukedroklar]

Good point, I hadn't considered that. However it does ignore the supposed omnipotence of the deity in question. If god did not want his 'words' tampered with, it simply could not be tampered with.

It's not that the word has been tampered with so badly that you cannot understand it, it's that the intent, the meaning has been manipulated by the modern Pharisees.

Lets take one passage from genesis and examine how it's translated:

King James Version - Genesis 4-23 "And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

American Standard Version - "23 Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.

I think "slain a man to my wounding, to my hurt" means his conscience was bothering him for killing a person. Do you think the modern translation is a good job of interpretation? Ever heard the saying "much is lost in translation"? I believe it not only applies here but also when we translate the KJV within our mind.

[enegue]

Case in point; Most Christians will readily agree we are in "the end times" or "the last of days" spoken of throughout the bible. Most of them think organized Christianity is on the right track. The bible says that in those days "all the world will be deceived, all but a handful. Even the chosen would be deceived... if that were possible".

If the deception is going to be that pervasive and inescapable, why are they so confident in what they are told is the meaning is actually what it means? A handful could hardly be considered as large as any of the major religions. If that were the case then the words "most will be deceived" would be more accurate and not "ALL but a handful" (which may very well mean that only the chosen (144k) would be that handful).

You are only partly telling the story, Dukedroklar. The relevant passage says:
"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
-- Matthew 24:21-24

God is not going to let things play out to the point where the elect will be deceived. Those who are watching for the signs, won't be deceived, and those who aren't, will. It's a pretty straight forward idea. The parable of the ten virgins indicates how important watching is.

You will have to have in your kitbag a really solid understanding of Jesus and his teaching in order to distinguish him from the false christs.

Cheers,
enegue

[Geordie Ross]

Hell no, Mormonism is hard polytheism anyway you don't want to get into that. But it shows a first hand written account of Jesus claiming himself to be God incarnate (though he never claimed this) wouldn't necessarily be anytthing that's going to convince you.

And I suppose the thousands of people who claim to be jesus reincarnate are first hand accounts too? No.

Aliens in volcanoes is more credible than Jesus coming from the planet Kolob?

Yep. Well.... They're equally absurd.

There will be errors and artistic licenses in there but what matters is whether or not he was raised, all the accounts agree with that central point. Unless you can build a time a machine is no way to prove whether he did so you will have to take it on a reasonable faith that he did if you want to be a Christian. If don't want to be a Christian then you will have to find an alternative explanation for the accounts.

So an infallible god attempting to communicate the most important message in the history of existence uses the most fallible method possible? This simply doesn't add up at all. It not omniscience, it's omni-shambles

It's to be expected as he did present himself to mankind in the form of a lowly carpenter and not anyone of any great significance or status at all ,but the first writings of his life were within a couple of decades of his life not hundreds of years later. Saint Paul states that there were people still alive at the time who could confirm they witnessed the resurrection so this is close to a first hand account. You either believe it or you don't, though ideally what you would do is combine this with the rational and philosophical arguments for Gods existence. You can also refer to the Old Testament that portrays someone very much like Jesus or a "suffering Messiah".

It's hearsay. It would be thrown out of court. These "rational and philosophical arguments for god" do affirm Zeus as much as Yahweh. They're deistic arguments at best,

-- Updated April 23rd, 2014, 7:26 am to add the following --

Good point, I hadn't considered that. However it does ignore the supposed omnipotence of the deity in question. If god did not want his 'words' tampered with, it simply could not be tampered with.

It's not that the word has been tampered with so badly that you cannot understand it, it's that the intent, the meaning has been manipulated by the modern Pharisees.

Lets take one passage from genesis and examine how it's translated:

King James Version - Genesis 4-23 "And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

American Standard Version - "23 Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.

I think "slain a man to my wounding, to my hurt" means his conscience was bothering him for killing a person. Do you think the modern translation is a good job of interpretation? Ever heard the saying "much is lost in translation"? I believe it not only applies here but also when we translate the KJV within our mind.

Extremly good and well presented point!

[Ruskin]

And I suppose the thousands of people who claim to be jesus reincarnate are first hand accounts too? No.

Yes but they only say that to get women and young girls and stuff.

Yep. Well.... They're equally absurd.

Exactly. I'd go for the authentic ancient texts. No flying saucers, no aliens, no rayguns, nothing like that going on.

So an infallible god attempting to communicate the most important message in the history of existence uses the most fallible method possible?

A method that is both humble, within history and will be taken on modest amount of faith to allow for freedom of choice. The perfect method.

This simply doesn't add up at all. It not omniscience, it's omni-shambles

Nope, complete perfection, it doesn't get any better. And it means you can still be an atheist and deny God if you like you're not being forced into the relationship you see.

It's hearsay. It would be thrown out of court.

With the number of eyewitnesses apparently involved I wouldn't be so sure. Certainly there was an empty tomb and we know for a fact that there was a powerful shared experience within a community of people in a specific place and time. A shared experience that continues on into present day you could say.

These "rational and philosophical arguments for god" do affirm Zeus as much as Yahweh. They're deistic arguments at best,

No because Zeus didn't create the universe. If you can affirm through reason that God must exist it can just as easily be the exact same God as the Torah and the gospels than a God we know nothing about. And it would make more sense to have a God who would have created us for a reason he cares about and therefore would interact with us and reveal himself in history. So if you combine the two approaches you have a powerful brew there. This goes well beyond Zeus or Thor.

[Geordie Ross]

Yes but they only say that to get women and young girls and stuff.

Yes? They are first hand accounts?...... No they are not! Also, what about the prostitute Jesus was so fond of?

Exactly. I'd go for the authentic ancient texts. No flying saucers, no aliens, no rayguns, nothing like that going on.

There are hundreds of authentic ancient texts from across the world. Yet your group bias dismisses them as myths.

A method that is both humble, within history and will be taken on modest amount of faith to allow for freedom of choice. The perfect method.

This is nonsensical apologetics. You cannot account for an omnipotent, omniscient and infallible deity using such a poor method of communication. It does not add up.

Nope, complete perfection, it doesn't get any better. And it means you can still be an atheist and deny God if you like you're not being forced into the relationship you see.

Surely god, as a perfect being, should create a logically sound and undeniably true message that cannot be refuted by a rational mind.

With the number of eyewitnesses apparently involved I wouldn't be so sure. Certainly there was an empty tomb and we know for a fact that there was a powerful shared experience within a community of people in a specific place and time. A shared experience that continues on into present day you could say.

The number of eye witnesses for alien abductions is far larger than that of the resurrection. Should we assume that aliens have a fascination with inserting probes into human rectums? Also, why wasn't this shared experience world wide? Gods geography seems to be concentrated into a tiny corner of the Middle East and North Africa. Isn't god universal? Why are his actions so specific to a tiny part of the land mass of earth?

No because Zeus didn't create the universe. If you can affirm through reason that God must exist it can just as easily be the exact same God as the Torah and the gospels than a God we know nothing about. And it would make more sense to have a God who would have created us for a reason he cares about and therefore would interact with us and reveal himself in history. So if you combine the two approaches you have a powerful brew there. This goes well beyond Zeus or Thor.

More group/confirmation bias. This is fallacious reasoning and I shall not stand for it.

Why didn't Zeus create the universe? The argument that it was (insert deity here) is equally as valid as yours. To claim otherwise is a fallacy. Simply because it is the deity you prefer does not give your argument any more weight.

[Ruskin]

Yes? They are first hand accounts?...... No they are not!

They're accounts based on someones first hand accounts of someone/something. You can faith in it or reject it that seems like a good deal to me.

Also, what about the prostitute Jesus was so fond of?

He had more interest in the lower classes, outcasts and scum of Jewish society than the elites so those were the people he hung around with there.

There are hundreds of authentic ancient texts from across the world. Yet your group bias dismisses them as myths.

If you mean the Vedas or whatever they generally kind of are though you can't really place them in history relate them to people in geographical space and time and you elephant heads and whatever, or it's the philosophy and accounts of some guy saying something. We would both want a bit more than just that. A resurrection from the dead will do very nicely.

This is nonsensical apologetics. You cannot account for an omnipotent, omniscient and infallible deity using such a poor method of communication. It does not add up.

If God just clobbered you over the head with something undeniable that would deny the need of faith which I think would defeat the idea. It wouldn't be voluntary for you if he did that. So you need something good but not too good, the perfect balance.

Surely god, as a perfect being, should create a logically sound and undeniably true message that cannot be refuted by a rational mind.

Perhaps that's exactly what he did? Though he did "hide it in plain sight" to some extent.

The number of eye witnesses for alien abductions is far larger than that of the resurrection.

Perhaps people do experience something unusual that happens to them? They may be well be "night terrors" or they could be something else we don't really know. You can keep an open mind on those as there have encounters with non-human entities that go back thousands of years the world over. They may bear some relation to what people used to call "fairies" if they're real but I'm not saying definitely are.

Should we assume that aliens have a fascination with inserting probes into human rectums?

I don't know if that's ever actually reported or it's a comedy cliche.

Also, why wasn't this shared experience world wide?

Well it was eventually but you have to start somewhere. Perhaps there are tribes in the Amazon who haven't heard about Jesus but that's probably about it.

Gods geography seems to be concentrated into a tiny corner of the Middle East and North Africa. Isn't god universal? Why are his actions so specific to a tiny part of the land mass of earth?

That's why believers had to set out on missionary work and preach the gospel and the Word of God as revealed in Christ. This wasn't just something to tell pass onto your children. So you have the global plan of campaign there.

Why didn't Zeus create the universe?

Well he didn't, this is how Zeus was born and raised according to Greek myth.


"Zeus was born by the Titans Cronus and Rhea. Cronus was notorious for being a very jealous and greedy deity. Out of the fear one of his children could take his throne, Cronus swallowed every child Rhea was giving birth to.

However, when Rhea gave birth to her last child, Zeus, she managed to trick Cronus with the help of the Titans Uranus and Gaea. She gave her husband a rock in swaddling clothes to swallow, as a substitution to her child, and sent Zeus away to the Greek island of Crete. Special daemons named "Curetes" made noise by hitting their shields, so that Cronus would to not hear the cries of the baby. Zeus was raised secretly by the Nymphs and was fed with honey and milk from the goat nurse Amaltheia with the help of her broken-off horn. Soon came the day where Zeus was mature enough to claim the Kingdom of the World and he started a battle against his father and the Titans. This battle is also known as "Titanomachy". First, Zeus managed to liberate his elder brothers and sisters from his father's stomach by giving him a special herb and making him disgorge.

Then, with the help of his siblings, Zeus overthrew the Titans in the depths of the Underworld, the Tartarus. After overthrowing his father Cronus, Zeus was confronted with the Giants and also the monster Typhon, which he both defeated successfully. Time had come for the Kingdom of the World to be in the hands of Zeus and his siblings! Justly, Zeus drew lots with his brothers Poseidon and Hades to let luck determine who would become the new King of the Gods. Zeus won the draw and he officially became the ruler of the Earth and the Sky and the Lord of Mount Olympus, the highest mountain of Greece."

The argument that it was (insert deity here) is equally as valid as yours.

I'm not sure if Zeus has any rational argument/s to back his existence. You're looking at some kind of composite between Indo-European sky god (Deus) and a Mediterranean fertility god. The Bible more or less states that these beings are all works of fiction and not to be worshiped as gods as there is only the one true God of the universe. And there are good rational arguments for this kind of God. Anything like Zeus you can just treat as ancient literature and cultural heritage.

To claim otherwise is a fallacy. Simply because it is the deity you prefer does not give your argument any more weight.

No because you have decent arguments to support Gods existence and real people/locations/events (and possible supernatural events) in real history. Zeus is nothing remotely at all like that at all.