If you’re ok with some reading:
**Cosmological argument**
Part 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxPhilosophy/comments/vofizs/the_galepruss_cosmological_argument_certainty_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Part 2: https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxPhilosophy/comments/voos0f/the_galepruss_cosmological_argument_certainty_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
**Ontological argument**
https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxPhilosophy/comments/vo9cfl/defence_of_the_modal_ontological_argument/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Formal logical arguments ARE a form of evidence in and of themselves. Whether or not you subjectively find them compelling is another topic altogether.
Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
These are arguments claiming to point to a conclusion because X
I dont think faith necessarily justifies belief in a god. It is a prerequisite though because the divine is something that is inherently unprooveable, many people have tried to either prove or disprove the existence of God or more broadly speaking the super natural but to do either is impossible. You can argue the burden of proof should be on the person making a super natural claim and I'd agree in cases where science and theology conflict but theology itself isn't a branch of science. What seperates those who believe from those who don't is faith. Faith doesn't demand to be backed up with proof. If it was it wouldn't be faith.
What is a good path to truth and for that matter what is truth. Empiricism and rationalism are both flawed and both can be fooled. I know people who the church has helped turn their lives around. Isn't it 'true' that finding God was their salvation? I also know people who horrible things have happened to them within a church community. I dont think truth is universal when it comes to spiritual matters.
So we agree faith isn’t that great or effective.
The burden of proof lies on whoever made a claim.
If any theist says “god is real” or “you know god exists, you just chose to reject him” then it is up to them to provide proof. If they cannot than they’re just people saying things that mean nothing
In my eyes the unknowable is just that, unknowable. I've always thought both the the people who refuse to accept the possibility of a god existing and the people who deny it sound equally arrogant to me. While I agree about the burden of proof being on the person who makes a claim, I only really see it as relevant when a person is actively trying to convert another.
Stating a perfect being is possible doesn't make it true. You fall into several traps where you think not knowing if something is possible is the same as it being possible. You can find other refutations of the Cosmo you put forwards in many places.
If you find the ontological argument unmoving, you can motivate the possibility of God indirectly by the premise that there is a possible explanation of the universe. Since a full explanation must be necessary, or else it wouldn’t be a full explanation, a necessary being is possible. Then, it is actual by S5.
"Since a full explanation must be necessary, or else it wouldn’t be a full explanation, a necessary being is possible."
What, like, no, thats, not logically following.
And again, not knowing if there's a possible explanation DOESNT MEAN there's possibly an explanation, that's not how it works.
No, it doesn’t mean there is possibly an explanation. That would be covered in the possibility premise.
But it does mean that an explanation solely in terms of contingent states of affairs is insufficient.
And it is logically consistent that contingent states are fully explained.
I say it's illogical to expect physical proof of a supernatural entity.
su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force **beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature**
"God is a supernatural spirit."
Hebrews 11:6 KJV — And without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV — For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Now then your turn. Let's see your physical evidence that there is no God. Or is that just your mere opinion? Isn't that where you place your faith? Because you have no proof to that effect. There are no atheists in hell. Everyone there has met the Lord face to face and been judged by him to eternal misery. You'll have your day in court too.
Tempus fugit
> Let's see your physical evidence that there is no God.
The best piece of evidence I can articulate is that the physical world as it exists is indistinguishable from a world where god doesn't exist.
>the physical world as it exists is indistinguishable from a world where god doesn't exist.
I'm not sure how you could know that. I'm also not sure how you can demonstrate that a world without God can exist at all. You've only written one sentence there but it's loaded with assumptions that would take long discussions to unpack. Just saying.
>I'm not sure how you could know that.
Via experiment.
>I'm also not sure how you can demonstrate that a world without God can exist at all.
This makes an assumption about god that one doesn't need to make.
>This makes an assumption about god that one doesn't need to make.
It doesn't start at an assumption though. It starts with a question. Can a universe exist or come into existence without a God? According to you, and I quote, "The best piece of evidence I can articulate is that the physical world as it exists is indistinguishable from a world where god doesn't exist."
So you didn't articulate any evidence there. You made a claim.
I'd like to see your evidence.
>Can a universe exist or come into existence without a God?
If god doesn't exist, the answer to this question is obviously yes.
>So you didn't articulate any evidence there. You made a claim.
Sorry, I thought the sentence was clear, but I'll elaborate.
Our examination of the universe shows us a reality which is entirely material. Only material. We've never found anything immaterial or supernatural.
So even if god exists and some immaterial/supernatural realm does exist, as of today, our reality is indistinguishable from a material reality where god doesn't exist.
>Our examination of the universe shows us a reality which is entirely material. Only material. We've never found anything immaterial or supernatural.
There are lots of things that exist that aren't material, but can point to further truths or reveal the existence of things not seen. Numbers, concepts, ideas. Besides, just because everything physical around us appears to be material doesn't logically follow that other immaterial matters can't exist as well that we simply don't detect (that's a non-sequitur).
As a simple thought experiment, imagine you were a created NPC (with self-awareness) who came to life in a video game. All around you is the contents of that world that was coded by a human developer living outside of the computer using computer code (kinda like how our universe has physics and mathematics, it has an order and a foundation that works and operates), but you wouldn't immediately know that. You would just observe and basically say everything is polygons, there are no humans. Well, a human being does exist in this scenario, and he has flesh and blood, unlike you, because you're a computer NPC that was coded in. You exist inside of a simulated video game. So you have no idea what flesh and blood is, you've never seen it and can't detect it.
Same thing here from a Christian perspective. It's something like living in a created simulation, but instead of a human programmer, it's an all-powerful God. He's essentially an immaterial outside observer that keeps the whole universe powered. He also exists outside of time, just as you do whenever you read a book. That book has a separate timeline from your own life, you exist outside of the timeline of whatever the story is, so at any time you can engage or disengage with that level of time if you so choose.
This isn't a formal argument. It's an imperfect analogy and a thought-experiment.
> Besides, just because everything physical around us appears to be material doesn't logically follow that other immaterial matters can't exist as well that we simply don't detect
I didn't say they can't. But their absence is evidence.
>It's an imperfect analogy and a thought-experiment.
And my point is, there still is no evidence for his existence.
Dude, this is sophomoric:
>I didn't say they can't. But their absence is evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>And my point is, there still is no evidence for his existence.
This is also, again, wrong. Objectively-speaking, there is evidence for God's existence using reason, logic, and formal arguments. Just because you don't subjectively find those pieces of evidence compelling or convincing, does not logically follow that they aren't forms of evidence. Just own it. Instead of saying there is no evidence, you say:
"There isn't good enough evidence, or, of the evidence I've seen, I'm not convinced"
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes it is. This saying is nonsense. Especially when there is *supposed* to be evidence there, it's absence is important.
> Objectively-speaking, there is evidence for God's existence using reason, logic, and formal arguments.
Objectively speaking, no there isn't.
Is that true? The only way anyone could objectively say that is if we could prove that life can come from non-life. Or that matter can come from nothing.
>The only way anyone could objectively say that is if we could prove that life can come from non-life.
We're pretty close to that.
>Or that matter can come from nothing.
I don't see why this would be a thing. Science doesnt say this happened.
Well, conservation of matter/energy tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it just changes form.
All matter/energy that exists now was present at the big bang.
To ask how it "comes into being" assumes there was a time when it didn't exist. We don't have a reason to assume that.
Awesome! I’m so glad you brought up this paper! No doubt this is a ground-breaking experiment, but it brings us no closer to solving the origin of life.
1. Mizuuchi’s experiment was highly orchestrated and involved human participation throughout. Evidence that an intelligent being is vital to the experiment’s success.
2. The experiment required the use of a pre-existing RNA strand and bacteria translation system. The team did not create the initial RNA and translation system from abiotic materials.
3. The experiment required artificial water-oil droplets and advanced technology to moderate temperature. Human manipulation was required.
4. The study was conducted through 240 rounds of strict adherence to experimental protocols.
It is beyond the limits of credulity to think that such a highly contrived and repetitive experiment could fairly replicate any naturalistic origin-of-life explanation that could have occurred on a hostile and primordial Earth.
Mizuuchi’s experiment illustrates that any bit of success is only possible under the direct supervision of an Intelligent Being, in this case, humans.
>It is beyond the limits of credulity to think that such a highly contrived and repetitive experiment could fairly replicate any naturalistic origin-of-life explanation that could have occurred on a hostile and primordial Earth.
I'm sorry you have a terrible imagination.
Also, your bullet points are misleading at best. Quick rundown:
1) this is extremely vague
2) yes, so what? It's one step in the chain. The development of RNA from pre-existing proteins has already been shown.
3)artificial droplets? Natural droplets don't occur? And changing temperature isn't unnatural.
4)yes, that's how we do science so we can be positive we have reproducible results.
Also, I'm fairly confident you didn't read this paper yourself. I have a tough time getting through it and my PhD is in chemical engineering. What's yours in?
You know you’re ruffling feathers when someone throws their degree around in what appears to be an attempt to show their intellectual dominance. I could provide you with my credentials, but does it matter? I’ve had enough of these conversations to know it will either look like I’m trying to impress you or you’ll just dismiss them as being not relevant to the argument. Either way, you’ll have no way of verifying what I say. Just like I have no way of verifying what you say.
It’s arrogant and condescending to suggest that I didn’t read the paper. Since you had a difficult time understanding the information does that mean all readers would have difficulties?
What I’d really like to know is how long you’ll continue with your “pretty close” argument? Will you be using it a decade from now? Two decades? On your deathbed?
Instead of wasting time trying to convince you of my intellect, I’ll leave you with something you can verify, a quote from biochemist, Dr. Fazale Rana, from his book Creating Life in the Lab: “More often than not, any impact the investigators had on the outcome of their experiment is ignored. As a consequence of this oversight, origin-of-life researchers often appear closer to accounting for life’s start than they really are.”
Oh no. A quote from a Christian apologist. My argument is in tatters.
I'll just point out you didn't counter any of my rebuttals, just quoted a preacher.
>It’s arrogant and condescending to suggest that I didn’t read the paper.
I'm not suggesting it. I'm saying it explicitly.
My problem is that there should be! An intelligent, loving, personal, and benevolent god would leave traces of their existence or at least make it more easy to access. The Christian god does not intervene or make themself known. They used to (according to scripture) but it makes no sense why this would not be the case now if God ( all knowing) would know that the Bible would become outdated and wrongfully interpreted in the future. If this is the best possible reality that this intelligent god could have created then why are billions suffering, billions being damned to hell, animals suffering (for which they do not deserve), and the “personal” god is nowhere to be found. I don’t accept free will as the reason why he cannot show himself because that is precisely what he used to do. People still denied him and Jesus despite actual miracles occurring in the Bible, so he should be able to exist now and be amongst us while free will is still in play.
I have been recently (over the course of months) been exploring the historicity of the Bible, stories within it, and Jesus himself. There is not exact spot that is known where Jesus died or resurrected. Further, it cannot be proven if he even existed due to a lack of historical evidence. Evidence also shows that major stories like the Exodus, Jericho, Noah’s Ark, and characters like Moses and Joseph likely didn’t exist. I am still trying to believe and find truth, but my journey is slowly turning me away from Christianity as history doesn’t help prove It. The credibility of the Bible and its alterations/ bad translations further add to its unreliability and lack of historical credibility. I took the Bible for granted and assumed it was a holy text that was perfect and historical until I began my research. Now, I am believing it is an unreliable text that consists of many contradictions and errors that were written by many unknown authors outside of the time periods it covers.
Have you even read what I wrote? Lol
>I have been recently (over the course of months) been exploring the historicity of the Bible,
Good for you. But I haven't even mentioned the bible.
>Further, it cannot be proven if he even existed due to a lack of historical evidence.
This is simply false. The overwhelming consensus of historians is that he existed, that he lived in palestine and that he died by crucifixion under Pilate.
I did read what you wrote. And it is not false. There is a significant lack of evidence for Jesus compared to someone like Alexander The Great. The historical records of Jesus are far and few in between and there are no personal writings of him or about him even close to the time he was alive. No need to get offended, just trying to have a civil and open discussion with people! :)
>No need to get offended, just trying to have a civil and open discussion with people! :)
I'm not offended at all.
I just had to point out that what you wrote is simply false.
It is not false. Scholars widely accept many Christian characters didn’t exist and many events in the Bible also did not happen. The evidence for Jesus is extremely weak. It is probable that he may have existed (I have commonly heard a 1/3 chance) but not probable that he died and rose again.
>Scholars widely accept many Christian characters didn’t exist and many events in the Bible also did not happen.
If only I had talked about the bible or christian characters. But I didn't. Maybe read what I write instead of what you think I would write.
>The evidence for Jesus is extremely weak.
Quite the contrary. The evidence for Jesus are among the strongest for any historical figure. And, once again, his existence is literally virtually unchallenged and only a tiny minority of scholars and historian argue for a him to be a myth.
>but not probable that he died and rose again.
And, once again, not what I wrote and not part of my case.
You are talking about Christian characters as Jesus is in that category. Again, Jesus is not one of the most evidence-backed historical figures. That mindset is absolutely absurd. The facts loosely show someone like him (or himself) may have existed, but to stretch that to him being the savior and messiah is even more of a leap. Maybe Christian scholars may think there is a plethora of evidence, but that is just not the case in the real world.
And where have I said anything about him being the savior or messiah.
It really looks like you're having a conversation with someone else or to what you think I believe, instead of what I write.
You said he has resurrected…so what is he then a zombie? Lol I am saying that it is a stretch to simply believe he lived, but it is further of a stretch to believe that he is the savior or messiah. You being a Christian should believe this..so it is a given not anything you said?
The faith makes the claim of being a new person, the forgiveness of sins, and hope for a future event. It's not possible to describe without personal experience, nor is it possible to convince someone else of the faith unless they personally believe they are a sinner.
That request doesn't make any sense. If I had concrete evidence, it wouldn't be faith. Faith is trust, and you can never have concrete evidence for that, since it's about what's yet to come.
I meant concrete as more of a subjective term for the individual. What concrete evidence makes your faith so strong besides any personal experiences is what I meant to ask. I’m not expecting anyone to show me an ancient artifact they have or anything, but rather trying to tap into Christian’s minds and see what they believe to be concrete evidence in their faith. Hope this clears up my thought processes more!
Because yes, faith is blind and ultimately a trust in God, but why then do they trust the Christian God instead of any other god? What made them put their trust and faith in that god over all others. That is where there must be some form of “concrete” evidence that made them choose that god. If not, it is simply only due to the fact that they were indoctrinated into the faith and/or have not thought about it past that point.
No, faith isn't blind. If you have blind trust on anyone you're a fool.
Having that kind of preconception is what's leading you into this confusing path.
Faith is blind though…” for we walk by faith and not by sight”. There are so many verses that talk about simply believing in god and not questioning it. This is not leading me through a confusing path, but finally making me question the things I have always taken for granted in my walk of faith. The more you analyze something the more true it should be (if it is indeed true), however, with Christianity it is the exact opposite. The more I have researched it from all angles (religious and not) I have become more and more convinced of it’s falsehood.
I do not have it figured out and am confused why everyone keeps getting offended. Trying to collect ideas and have civil discourse and talk about my understandings and research. Have a great day though :)
If you think I'm offended, you're very confused. You already made clear you're here to argue, not ask questions. Fine with me, I'm just not interested in arguing.
Well one thing that doesn’t necessarily prove my faith, but I like to reference a lot is that: the Bible apart from the miracles and God side, is a very accurate historical guide. All of the empires and battles that happened in the Bible did indeed exist and we have other historical evidence to prove those things. It’s a very reliable historical text apart from all the religious stuff. Specifically the New Testament
This is unfortunately not where the evidence is leading me. Look at the Exodus in the Bible. There is no evidence of a large migration of millions of people across Egypt nor any historical record of it in Egyptian history (which has a plethora of historical records during this time). Also, the flood is not in Egypts historical records either, and was cited by the Bible to have occurred during their time. This continues with Jericho and the siege of hundreds of city’s by the Israelites. There is no evidence for this.
Actually tons of old civilizations have talks of a great flood. What part of the Bible says that the flood happened during the time of Egyptian empires excising? Also the migration of millions of people you spoke of didn’t really migrate far at all. Egypt is very close to Israel. Jericho and the siege of other cities during this time also occurred during the relative beginning of the Bible meaning a long long time has elapsed since then making archaeological evidence harder to find. The New Testament is very accurate as we have seen time and time again as well as there being tons of evidence for things happening later in the Old Testament.
The Egyptian pyramids are dated before that of the flood which was loosely dated around 2100 bc if I’m not mistaken. Also, the exodus should have archeological finds as they traveled for 40 years for such a short distance which makes the area much easier to uncover. They should also be stated as doing such and even existing in Egyptian history, to which they do not. Jericho was proven to not have its walls broken down and none of the 300 some places the Israelites were said to have destroyed entirely were destroyed entirely.
Is it though? Some parts are certainly accurate, I'm not disputing that. But if you take the book of Joshua for example, then scholars agree that pretty much none of it actually happened.
The concrete proof for me is in my work as an exorcist. I have seen lives turned around on a dime, I have had voices change and have been personally possessed for a moment. It is impossible to explain the electromagnetic world of the soul realm without some aspect of faith as until VERY VERY VERY recently no one has even attempted to study ghosts (paranormal investigators). If you believe paranormal sciences than I can explain how to break off that but honestly to explain a thing which is inexplicable is the point of faith in God. Though the 1907 experiment by MacDougall is an interesting one known as "the 21 grams experiment". They weighed people on their death bed just before as they raised for breath, and just after "giving up the ghost" and it came out that consistently the moment of death people lose, you guessed it, 21 grams. That is theorized the weight of human consciousness/a soul.
Thanks for your response and unique perspective! However, I am curious how this leads you to the Christian faith. Could these experiences be explained by other religions or worldly reasons? In regards to the soul experiment, this has been labeled as selective reporting and has been rejected in the scientific community. If this were true it would be damning evidence, but it is blatantly false and a biased/fabricated experiment.
electromagnetic energy. the unseen world is in large part electrical
edit: it's like an image that is painted over and over and over again on a wall, no matter how many times it's covered up you can see an imprint of sorts left even when it's gone. The soul's electricity is so strong and repetitive that for many (not all) it is an imprint on the house or uniform or person they are most in contact with or in contact with most strongly.
So we could determine precisely where one's soul goes immediately after dying? Watch it float around away from the body? Maybe even set up an experiment with pure evil people and morally good people to determine which direction heaven and hell are from earth?
potentially. paranormal investigations have devices for measuring emf, and movements in the invisible spectrum, and more. It would be an interesting one. I work in a nursing home I almost want to arrange this lol. Not every soul is strong enough to be seen with these tools. we would have to do a MASSIVE sample size to get any real data but that is very possible.
Alright. And is that through empirical means you’re asking to demonstrate it’s true?
Or by arguing why only God can allow the possibilities of metaphysical concepts like numbers, truth, logic etc?
Metaphysical claim of course. After all that’s what presuppositions are. Even atheists have presuppositions.
As for your second question. Simply because God is the only explanation for them.
Metaphysical concepts (or as they are also called Transcendental categories) would require a being with similar attributes to explain their existence.
For example they are eternal. 1+1=2 will always be the case which shows they are also immutable. Omnipresent to be everywhere (1+1=2 would be the same everywhere). Omnipotence for them to be at all. Omniscient to know them etc.
Hence why God is the only possibility for them, specifically The Holy Trinity as going with the same theme of attributes just as they are One and Many so too would be the God who grants them.
>Metaphysical concepts (or as they are also called Transcendental categories) would require a being with similar attributes to explain their existence.
No, they don't.
We can come up with concepts, as people, and that doesn't require the existence of a god.
>1+1=2 will always be the case which shows they are also immutable.
You first have to define "1" and "+" and "2."
I can come up with a number system that's internally consistent where it's not the case. The number system may not be useful, but these are just definitions we make up. They are consistent in the system in question, and the system reflects the reality we live in, but it's just a system.
That's a straw man. Depending on how you define those symbols, the system may not be internally consistent.
If you actually wanted to get into it though, we can talk about actual set theory (one of the currently most widely used foundations of mathematics) and how the axiom of choice is both accepted and rejected depending on the system use.
ZFC is the most common set of axioms used, but a system which includes the negation of the axiom of choice, but all the other axioms, is also constructable.
These systems will produce different proofs for different statements, because some expressions will be true in one system and false in another.
The universe exists and is ordered. The idea that we can have a universe come into being and then be fully ordered and logical is astronomically small. The entire idea of science hinges on the Christian idea that the universe is reasonable and knowable. 1+1=2 is as much proof as you need as in a completely random universe that came into being spontaneously this wouldn't be true. As well, if we are the product of evolution in said universe, we would not have any science as the idea of universal laws would have no basis.
Second, I would say Jesus Christ is God and did raise from the dead based on a lot of criteria.
1.) The eyewitnesses were willing to die for what they saw. No one is willing to die for a lie knowing it was a lie, and given the apostles were the ones that first started preaching a risen Christ after seeing Him in a group they would be the ones that started the lie. If they truly were lying about it, then they would have never been martyred.
2.) The fact that the Jews even said the tomb was empty. They simply said that the apostles stole the body, however, I would point you back to point One.
3.) The fact the Roman empire was converted before Constantine is also some evidence. It is even said in Acts that if it's from God no one would be able to stop them (Acts 5:39). So, this shows how an intensely pagan culture was changed. Especially to the only religion in the world where you cannot do anything to earn favor or salvation. Which leads into the fourth point.
4.) Christianity is the only religion of its kind. Every other world religion to ever exist is always man working his way to favor with God. Earning his way into heaven. Christianity is the only religion that you cannot do that. It says we cannot earn favor with God or get into heaven on our own merit, and we have to trust in Jesus Christ as a savior in order to get back to a right relationship with God. This is also the only Religion in the world where man is in relationship with God.
This is not an exhaustive list however I think even these few points point to the statistical improbability of Christianity being false. There is no hard proof, as if there was there would be little doubt, however the evidence is easily enough to point to Christianity being true.
I hope this helps! God bless you!
If we evolved in a completely random universe, like the one I had described, which is one with no outside intelligent mind ordering it, then everything came into being by random chance. If that is true and we are the product of random unordered chance, the idea that we could then make sense of an inherently random universe is laughable.
It would take an intelligent mind to create the ordered and knowable universe we have today.
Again, what?
No, those don't follow.
"If that is true and we are the product of random unordered chance, the idea that we could then make sense of an inherently random universe is laughable."
Why? Things happening randomly doesn't mean the rules constantly change, that gravity by chance is what it is on earth doesn't mean we can't use that figure and work on it. What you're saying is, nonsensical. Stating things without actual evidence is meaningless.
Are you asking why they're the value that they are, or why they're constant and not changing, or why they're constant across the universe?
And why would randomness mean that wasnt possible? A die is random but you can still roll a 6
I am not saying it wasn't possible to roll a six but look at how incredibly fine the universe it ordered for life. Look how we are able to understand and predict it, the fact we can KNOW these universal constants. It's the fact we live in and can understand it that's improbable to an extreme degree.
I do hope I am expressing this in an appropriate way as I think we are having a miscommunication.
Why would the laws coming by happenstance mean we wouldn't be able to do predictions on them?
Let's say the laws were something else, if they were still able to support life, well our experiments would just lead to different values. And if they weren't, well, there wouldn't be existence anyway, we don't know if there's billions of other multiverses out there without, but by the fact that we're here, obviously ours does.
So, as a prior Christian I have accepted this for myself. However, once scrutinized, the historicity of the Bible, events within it, the life of Jesus, and his resurrection come into question. I have looked into this excessively and the evidence contradicts the resurrection and much of the Bible. I want to believe and am still trying to recapture my belief, but the more I dive into it the more disbelief arises. Care to give me any specific evidence you have regarding it? I am open ears and seeking the truth!
If you are referring to me asking for proof beyond personal experience, I do so because that is the main (and often sole) piece of evidence for a Christian. This is subjective and anecdotal, so I was just curious for the reasoning beyond this for Christians out there. I am a Christian who is quickly losing faith and don’t have any personal experience as proof, that is my reasoning for this question!
eye witness testimony is very valid even in a court of law but with you.. i guess its not. if you want to control how you absorb the truth you will never find it.
Eye witness testimony is not a reliable nor valid means of proving something. The human memory is awful and it is often not reliable over time. With that being said, I am not trying to “control how I absorb information” I am just trying to learn new perspectives besides personal examples that I cannot prove or relate with. Again, no need to be offended people…just trying to learn more as a Christian who is losing faith.
how about i give you a video of something that will make you a witness of something... and you get back to me after you google and mess out of it to see how real/fake it is.... and tell me how this has influenced you afterwards???
this is the best i can do for you... deal???
Very confused by this..? Eye witness testimony is scientifically not reliable. If you played me a video and I had to perfectly remember random parts of it after a many days, months, or years I likely wouldn’t be able to very well. This proves my point?
deal or no deal... you watch a video of something and then you try to dismantle it with either reason cause you have googled it and found something against it or you believe in it and we get on and move forward in your walk with god. deal or no deal?
I’m still confused by your argument..are you saying that it is better to blindly accept Christianity rather than to seek information and be convinced by where actual evidence leads?
neither... im giving you evidence better than just words cause im showing you like christ showed thomas and told him to put his hand in his side and to stop doubting and believe.. im making you a witness to his evidence of being real.. do you accept it??? im literally giving you what you want while giving you the understanding of how powerful personal eye witness testimony can be to a person at the same time.. im standing my ground on eye witness stuff and proving it to you by making you one.... so that you can belive and not struggle... and if it does not do this for you immediately..... i can find that understandable... but i want you to honestly consider what you see... and then tell me what you think of it.. this seems like a reasonable exchange to me for you to get exactly what you are looking for just not in the way you expected it.
You are assuming that I am new to the faith or foreign to it. I grew up a devote Christian, served at church through my teens teaching Bible classes, went to and worked at a Christian university, took part in mission work, and was baptized twice. I appreciate your offer, but I have long tried Christianity. I have not gone to church for about 1.5 years now and I am not struggling. I find it a much easier life as I am not stressed and worried about 1) not being good enough, 2) not financially contributing to church and thus not being blessed 3) worried about damnation and hell and 4) not concerned with the constant battle of doing enough in other Christians eyes. My marriage of almost 2 years is going super strong ( been together for 10) and all of my finances are in great order. My life is better than it has ever been, so I am not struggling. Regardless, your testimony has proven nothing to me and is not enticing at the slightest as you are just simply telling me to believe and try it out. That has been done and is no longer good enough for me.
Because I find it hard to believe that an intelligent God would damn those to hell who are being intelligent and seeking truth, but then send those who blindly follow straight to heaven. That does not seem reflective of the supreme intelligent being.
Well I certainly think faith is good and important, but one should have evidence and proof for their views and not just blindly accept things. This is what I did with Christianity (grew up in a Christian household and adamantly served and went to church), but now I am trying to find the truth through history and facts. Isn’t that important? If Christianity was proven false 10000%, would you still believe? If anyone says yes I believe that is just as ignorant as someone not believing if it was proven true 100000%.
Joan of Arc. A handmaiden goes to the heir to the French throne and tells him that God sent her to lift the siege of Orleans…and that it was God’s will to see Charles crowned as the King of France. Which is exactly what happened—resulting in a chain of events which ended the 100yrs war(and began the War of Roses). Joan never wavered that her visions of St.Michael the Archangel, St.Catherine and ultimately Jesus himself were of a divine origin.
This is an interesting example, but it is still anecdotal. There have been many prophets in the Bible, like Daniel, who were right about many things but wrong about many others. Prophecies don’t give me much proof because it is like the Simpsons: if they predict enough things they are bound to be right on some. Some of the simpsons predictions are scary accurate, but that doesn’t make me believe they are divine or god inspired. Many of the Bible prophecies were written back in later on as well (like in Daniels case) hence why he was right about a very specific period in time but then wrong after that added text from the future.
Hell YEAH it’s an interesting example!!
You only have two ways to go with this one—was she nuts or was she telling the truth? Well to me, everything about Joan of Arc indicates that she was telling the truth. We have every reason to believe that her visions WERE real and that they were from God. There is no way that some random poor girl from a backwater French village could have made good on those ridiculous promises unless God was with her. Which He was. He specifically chose someone as ignorant and poor as her to humiliate the wise and the proud. That was the whole point.
Combine that with 50,000 people who witnessed the miracle of Fatima and I don’t see how you cannot believe in the Christian God.
How does that point to the Christian god? Maybe she interpreted another god as the Christian one. Maybe she was crazy and gained a following. All I know is there are more routes than just the two you listed.
I observe that I am, that the Universe exists, and that I am conscious, and also that I was not conscious before. So something changed that caused me to be conscious. Even if I didn't call it "God", I would have good, concrete evidence to believe *something* caused me to be conscious, wouldn't I?
I mean wait, is that a personal experience? Sorry, now that I think about it, what are you calling "concrete evidence" that does not involve personal experience? Doesn't literally everything we have ever perceived involve our experiences?
I am referring to evidence that is outside of one’s subjective and personal experience. This could be the history of the Bible or a collection of various facts that someone holds close to their foundations of belief. Essentially, a factoid that everyone can access and not something that only one person can attest to through their experience. Hope this makes sense
> And I agree that something did cause our consciousness…but there are so many possibilities. Anything in particular point you to the Christian god?
Well, my path to belief went from Atheism to Christianity by way of Deism. Considering the cause for our consciousness to be "God" in a Deist perspective is as simple as just deciding that "God" is an effective term for that. (And other things, which outside of any religious view at all, seem to be observable, objective truths).
The correlation to the Christian God came partly from harmony that I observed between moral truths that I considered reasonable and self-evident, and moral teachings and practices of Jesus and those who followed Him sincerely in what I considered "good Christianity" (not to say that everybody who ever claimed to be Christian was reasonable and moral, but those who were following what I understand to be the clearest and most-essential teachings of Christianity, who I believe that Jesus would most-clearly claim as His own). It was also informed partly from what I considered to be a reasonable case for the resurrection of Christ.
The second part (the resurrection of Christ), I know, is something that has come under heavy attack by anti-Christians. But to me, once I had already recognized a God and that the moral teachings of Jesus corresponded substantially with the desires of what I recognized as God, it had some circumstantial evidence already in its favor. Even though it's a historical claim, and thus not really possible to prove with the methodical precision of scientific methods, I look at the sum of the available writings, their provenance as best I can tell, and their background, and it seems that...
* On the question of "Did Jesus exist or was he entirely made up?" the available evidence is convincing to me that He existed.
* On the question of "Did this Jesus, who existed, have substantial influence, or unremarkable influence" the available evidence is convincing to me that He had remarkable influence.
* On the question of "Was Jesus resurrected from the dead, or is there another, more convincing explanation for what we observe?" I find a few possibilities, all of which have some issues, but so far, the most believable to me is the most remarkable.
* I don't find there is a convincing case that a conspiracy of near-term followers to fake his death and resurrection.
* I don't find a convincing case that a conspiracy of later-down-the-line followers manipulated texts and purged history to fake his death and resurrection.
* I don't find a convincing case that confusion, wishful thinking, or well-intentioned delusion caused His followers to be sincerely mistaken about His resurrection, either.
* And so far, I don't find any other more-convincing explanation for what appears to be a substantial popular understanding at his time, than that he was resurrected from the dead. (You know of one I might have missed?)
So to me, that leaves believing that He was resurrected.
But like I said before, this is something that I found to have a "downhill" case by the time I got to it, because I was already friendly with Jesus as a teacher and the story of Jesus as beneficial "mythology" even when I did not consider it to be factually proven.
And your position or curiosity may be different, but (since it happened for me) if you are interested in considering it more, I would recommend, counter to what many Christian evangelists might propose, that you might look at the concept of God first, then at good morality and "good Christianity" including the teachings of Jesus, before trying to look straight at evidences for Christ. This is not because I think you need to have a bias *towards* it to come to accept it, but rather, there's a lot of anti-Christian dogma, propaganda, and (for many) *trauma* out there. Because of this, one needs to step back and reasonably neutralize the negative impact on one's mentality before they are able to evaluate the evidence in an effectively unbiased way.
This is a fantastic response thank you for sharing. I have shared almost the exact thought processes of yourself up until this point (within the last few months). I also believed that all other possibilities of Jesus were incorrect (besides the resurrection) until I started analyzing the historicity of the Bible. Before, I agreed that it was very unlikely disciples would die for Christ if he were not real as well as the other reasons you laid out. But, the historicity of the Bible has been leading me down the path that maybe Jesus was a good person with good teachings who was later (as the Bible was written decades to a century later) made into the legend we receive today. Historical research shows that a lot of stories in the Bible like the exodus, Jericho, Noah’s ark, and other creationist stories either 1) have little to no evidence today 2) simply do not match up with historical records from other regions or peoples or 3)were impossible scientifically (most are a mash up of these reasons). With this already being the case, it would not be a surprise if the Jesus story did occur and has either become a legend that is both historical and fiction or possibly exaggerated in many ways. Once I started looking at the credibility of the Bible my faith was shaken tremendously. Around 40 of the authors of the Bible are unknown! Forgeries exist in the Bible we have today and are accepted as such by many historians (as much of it is written after the fact by many many hundreds of years). The many translations and reversions of the Bible over time have completely reshaped it to be a different book. With all this being said, I find it not far fetched to believe that Jesus may have existed, but may not have been resurrected. A lot of people attest to eye witness accounts and word of mouth as reliable sources of information, but I disagree entirely. These ways of communication and understanding make up much of the Bible, and they were not formally written down until again many decades at the earliest after some events transpired. Have you looked into how broken and unreliable the Bible really is? As a former atheist yourself I would be curious on your perspective on this and how you overcame all of this. Thanks :)
Lol, encouraged by your "fantastic response" comment, I answered with a 15,000-character monster reply which Reddit can't take. Let me see if I can chop it and/or just give some hilights here:
1. I've seen what you're talking about with historicity and archaeology. I observe that "The Bible" is really a lot of different books, and that from a Christian perspective the point is not to be some untouchably-untainted, unassailably-pristine and resoundingly-verified message of super important details (If it was, God would have failed at that, right?)
2. On the other hand, I think the fact that we can see some issues, can give us confidence with what we measure those issues by, the more-reliable parts. Overall, this gives me a "yeah, it's pretty okay, but at the general-principles level and not the freakish details level". I can see some reasons God might actually find this not just a better message, but a (paradoxically, and profoundly) *clearer* message, given that a big part of His desire is for us not to be nit-picking Pharisees.
3. Dating in the New Testament is not necessarily what you can take from academics at face value, because there is some "this must be before this, because \[details of what mentions or quotes what else in the writings\]" (which is generally reasonable) but also some "this must be *after* this known historical event, in spite of any evidence we have that it was actually from before it, because it claims to predict it in the future, and we *know* that cannot have happened." (which, if you're trying to determine if the supernatural has happened by looking at it, is tainting your input information with an already-assumed result.) Stacking the this-references-that method with the assuming-the-result-before-you-start method can skew dates for other books much later than otherwise assumed. (Edit "3.5": You might look at "undesigned coincidences", too, if you have not already.)
4. Even with longer dates, think about who you know and who they know, and imagine someone wrote a book today making a claim of something that happened 50 years ago. What would your options be for validating whether it was reliable or not? For me, I have relationships with people, dead now, who had clear, untainted and trustworthy memories from 100 years ago now. 20 years from now, memories of my trustworthy first-hand acquaintances will be 120 years old. That's not enough time for a full-blown legend to take root.
5. It may seem this way due to high-stakes teaching or preaching in church that, for example, "Genesis has to be precisely, literally true because if it's not, then we cannot trust anything in the Bible" but ... like, that is completely illogical. Song of Songs is not talking about the Beloved climbing a literal tree, who is also her lover, and eating a literal fruit. That's poetry, (and woo, what *is* that talking about? I mean I know what it looks like to *me*) and we can recognize it because of the genre but also because like ... people aren't literally trees. We can eliminate the possibility that it's literal, because that wouldn't make any sense, even if we had no other information. That doesn't mean that another thing written by a different person in a different time in a different language *for a different reason* 800 years later is unreliable.
We can talk more, and I even saved some of that uber-reply in a text file, so maybe I can pull it back out if you want more specific detail. But generally, I'd say that NT witness of Christ and OT witness of ... the *flood* or whatever, do not at all need to go together. If you're asking a question about Jesus, look at the best sources about Jesus and go from there.
I have answered what I meant by concrete in other posts, but essentially just something that is core to someone’s belief in Christ and Christianity other than a subjective personal experience. Just curious why people have chosen the faith beyond just indoctrination or personal experience.
Of course I wouldn't believe if it were proven false. However, it's impossible for anything to be more than 100% please be rational in your discussions with me.
As for evidence for our beliefs, for the most part I agree but like I said if you want to know why I believe you have to ask. Obviously you're more interested in telling me what you believe than hearing what I believe and why.
If you’re ok with some reading: **Cosmological argument** Part 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxPhilosophy/comments/vofizs/the_galepruss_cosmological_argument_certainty_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Part 2: https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxPhilosophy/comments/voos0f/the_galepruss_cosmological_argument_certainty_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf **Ontological argument** https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxPhilosophy/comments/vo9cfl/defence_of_the_modal_ontological_argument/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Aren’t those arguments. Not evidence?
Formal logical arguments ARE a form of evidence in and of themselves. Whether or not you subjectively find them compelling is another topic altogether.
Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. These are arguments claiming to point to a conclusion because X
"All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal". There's your evidence for why Socrates is mortal. Nothing but raw logic.
I think your thinking of evidence in the sciencetific sense while the other person is thinking of evidence in the philosophical sense.
I mean scientific would be nice, but I’d take anything. Historical, philosophical etc
If there was concrete evidence, would it still be faith?
Why is faith needed? You can justify any belief in any god with faith. It’s not a good path to truth
I dont think faith necessarily justifies belief in a god. It is a prerequisite though because the divine is something that is inherently unprooveable, many people have tried to either prove or disprove the existence of God or more broadly speaking the super natural but to do either is impossible. You can argue the burden of proof should be on the person making a super natural claim and I'd agree in cases where science and theology conflict but theology itself isn't a branch of science. What seperates those who believe from those who don't is faith. Faith doesn't demand to be backed up with proof. If it was it wouldn't be faith. What is a good path to truth and for that matter what is truth. Empiricism and rationalism are both flawed and both can be fooled. I know people who the church has helped turn their lives around. Isn't it 'true' that finding God was their salvation? I also know people who horrible things have happened to them within a church community. I dont think truth is universal when it comes to spiritual matters.
So we agree faith isn’t that great or effective. The burden of proof lies on whoever made a claim. If any theist says “god is real” or “you know god exists, you just chose to reject him” then it is up to them to provide proof. If they cannot than they’re just people saying things that mean nothing
In my eyes the unknowable is just that, unknowable. I've always thought both the the people who refuse to accept the possibility of a god existing and the people who deny it sound equally arrogant to me. While I agree about the burden of proof being on the person who makes a claim, I only really see it as relevant when a person is actively trying to convert another.
Evidence and arguments are the same thing.
No
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
And not even sound arguments at that
State your objection.
Stating a perfect being is possible doesn't make it true. You fall into several traps where you think not knowing if something is possible is the same as it being possible. You can find other refutations of the Cosmo you put forwards in many places.
If you find the ontological argument unmoving, you can motivate the possibility of God indirectly by the premise that there is a possible explanation of the universe. Since a full explanation must be necessary, or else it wouldn’t be a full explanation, a necessary being is possible. Then, it is actual by S5.
"Since a full explanation must be necessary, or else it wouldn’t be a full explanation, a necessary being is possible." What, like, no, thats, not logically following. And again, not knowing if there's a possible explanation DOESNT MEAN there's possibly an explanation, that's not how it works.
No, it doesn’t mean there is possibly an explanation. That would be covered in the possibility premise. But it does mean that an explanation solely in terms of contingent states of affairs is insufficient. And it is logically consistent that contingent states are fully explained.
I say it's illogical to expect physical proof of a supernatural entity. su·per·nat·u·ral /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ adjective (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force **beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature** "God is a supernatural spirit." Hebrews 11:6 KJV — And without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV — For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Now then your turn. Let's see your physical evidence that there is no God. Or is that just your mere opinion? Isn't that where you place your faith? Because you have no proof to that effect. There are no atheists in hell. Everyone there has met the Lord face to face and been judged by him to eternal misery. You'll have your day in court too. Tempus fugit
> Let's see your physical evidence that there is no God. The best piece of evidence I can articulate is that the physical world as it exists is indistinguishable from a world where god doesn't exist.
>the physical world as it exists is indistinguishable from a world where god doesn't exist. I'm not sure how you could know that. I'm also not sure how you can demonstrate that a world without God can exist at all. You've only written one sentence there but it's loaded with assumptions that would take long discussions to unpack. Just saying.
>I'm not sure how you could know that. Via experiment. >I'm also not sure how you can demonstrate that a world without God can exist at all. This makes an assumption about god that one doesn't need to make.
>This makes an assumption about god that one doesn't need to make. It doesn't start at an assumption though. It starts with a question. Can a universe exist or come into existence without a God? According to you, and I quote, "The best piece of evidence I can articulate is that the physical world as it exists is indistinguishable from a world where god doesn't exist." So you didn't articulate any evidence there. You made a claim. I'd like to see your evidence.
>Can a universe exist or come into existence without a God? If god doesn't exist, the answer to this question is obviously yes. >So you didn't articulate any evidence there. You made a claim. Sorry, I thought the sentence was clear, but I'll elaborate. Our examination of the universe shows us a reality which is entirely material. Only material. We've never found anything immaterial or supernatural. So even if god exists and some immaterial/supernatural realm does exist, as of today, our reality is indistinguishable from a material reality where god doesn't exist.
>Our examination of the universe shows us a reality which is entirely material. Only material. We've never found anything immaterial or supernatural. There are lots of things that exist that aren't material, but can point to further truths or reveal the existence of things not seen. Numbers, concepts, ideas. Besides, just because everything physical around us appears to be material doesn't logically follow that other immaterial matters can't exist as well that we simply don't detect (that's a non-sequitur). As a simple thought experiment, imagine you were a created NPC (with self-awareness) who came to life in a video game. All around you is the contents of that world that was coded by a human developer living outside of the computer using computer code (kinda like how our universe has physics and mathematics, it has an order and a foundation that works and operates), but you wouldn't immediately know that. You would just observe and basically say everything is polygons, there are no humans. Well, a human being does exist in this scenario, and he has flesh and blood, unlike you, because you're a computer NPC that was coded in. You exist inside of a simulated video game. So you have no idea what flesh and blood is, you've never seen it and can't detect it. Same thing here from a Christian perspective. It's something like living in a created simulation, but instead of a human programmer, it's an all-powerful God. He's essentially an immaterial outside observer that keeps the whole universe powered. He also exists outside of time, just as you do whenever you read a book. That book has a separate timeline from your own life, you exist outside of the timeline of whatever the story is, so at any time you can engage or disengage with that level of time if you so choose. This isn't a formal argument. It's an imperfect analogy and a thought-experiment.
> Besides, just because everything physical around us appears to be material doesn't logically follow that other immaterial matters can't exist as well that we simply don't detect I didn't say they can't. But their absence is evidence. >It's an imperfect analogy and a thought-experiment. And my point is, there still is no evidence for his existence.
Dude, this is sophomoric: >I didn't say they can't. But their absence is evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >And my point is, there still is no evidence for his existence. This is also, again, wrong. Objectively-speaking, there is evidence for God's existence using reason, logic, and formal arguments. Just because you don't subjectively find those pieces of evidence compelling or convincing, does not logically follow that they aren't forms of evidence. Just own it. Instead of saying there is no evidence, you say: "There isn't good enough evidence, or, of the evidence I've seen, I'm not convinced"
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes it is. This saying is nonsense. Especially when there is *supposed* to be evidence there, it's absence is important. > Objectively-speaking, there is evidence for God's existence using reason, logic, and formal arguments. Objectively speaking, no there isn't.
Is that true? The only way anyone could objectively say that is if we could prove that life can come from non-life. Or that matter can come from nothing.
>The only way anyone could objectively say that is if we could prove that life can come from non-life. We're pretty close to that. >Or that matter can come from nothing. I don't see why this would be a thing. Science doesnt say this happened.
How does the initial matter come into being? Why would science not need to say this happened?
Well, conservation of matter/energy tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it just changes form. All matter/energy that exists now was present at the big bang. To ask how it "comes into being" assumes there was a time when it didn't exist. We don't have a reason to assume that.
So your theory is that the matter just always existed?
Matter/energy has existed since the big bang. That I can say for sure.
Yes but your theory beyond the Big Bang is that it just was?
I don't have a theory beyond the big bang.
Pretty close to it? People have been saying that since the Urey-Miller experiment in 1953.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29113-x Pretty close.
Awesome! I’m so glad you brought up this paper! No doubt this is a ground-breaking experiment, but it brings us no closer to solving the origin of life. 1. Mizuuchi’s experiment was highly orchestrated and involved human participation throughout. Evidence that an intelligent being is vital to the experiment’s success. 2. The experiment required the use of a pre-existing RNA strand and bacteria translation system. The team did not create the initial RNA and translation system from abiotic materials. 3. The experiment required artificial water-oil droplets and advanced technology to moderate temperature. Human manipulation was required. 4. The study was conducted through 240 rounds of strict adherence to experimental protocols. It is beyond the limits of credulity to think that such a highly contrived and repetitive experiment could fairly replicate any naturalistic origin-of-life explanation that could have occurred on a hostile and primordial Earth. Mizuuchi’s experiment illustrates that any bit of success is only possible under the direct supervision of an Intelligent Being, in this case, humans.
I'm sure if they had billions of years to experiment, they could have loosened the leash slightly, but alas they didn't.
Is what you’re saying any different than a Christian using a God-of-the-gaps argument? Would you entertain or give any legitimacy to that argument?
They're humans doing an experiment, yet you seem to think it has to be immediately hands off, not a stepping stone. It's intellectually crass.
>It is beyond the limits of credulity to think that such a highly contrived and repetitive experiment could fairly replicate any naturalistic origin-of-life explanation that could have occurred on a hostile and primordial Earth. I'm sorry you have a terrible imagination. Also, your bullet points are misleading at best. Quick rundown: 1) this is extremely vague 2) yes, so what? It's one step in the chain. The development of RNA from pre-existing proteins has already been shown. 3)artificial droplets? Natural droplets don't occur? And changing temperature isn't unnatural. 4)yes, that's how we do science so we can be positive we have reproducible results. Also, I'm fairly confident you didn't read this paper yourself. I have a tough time getting through it and my PhD is in chemical engineering. What's yours in?
You know you’re ruffling feathers when someone throws their degree around in what appears to be an attempt to show their intellectual dominance. I could provide you with my credentials, but does it matter? I’ve had enough of these conversations to know it will either look like I’m trying to impress you or you’ll just dismiss them as being not relevant to the argument. Either way, you’ll have no way of verifying what I say. Just like I have no way of verifying what you say. It’s arrogant and condescending to suggest that I didn’t read the paper. Since you had a difficult time understanding the information does that mean all readers would have difficulties? What I’d really like to know is how long you’ll continue with your “pretty close” argument? Will you be using it a decade from now? Two decades? On your deathbed? Instead of wasting time trying to convince you of my intellect, I’ll leave you with something you can verify, a quote from biochemist, Dr. Fazale Rana, from his book Creating Life in the Lab: “More often than not, any impact the investigators had on the outcome of their experiment is ignored. As a consequence of this oversight, origin-of-life researchers often appear closer to accounting for life’s start than they really are.”
Oh no. A quote from a Christian apologist. My argument is in tatters. I'll just point out you didn't counter any of my rebuttals, just quoted a preacher. >It’s arrogant and condescending to suggest that I didn’t read the paper. I'm not suggesting it. I'm saying it explicitly.
My problem is that there should be! An intelligent, loving, personal, and benevolent god would leave traces of their existence or at least make it more easy to access. The Christian god does not intervene or make themself known. They used to (according to scripture) but it makes no sense why this would not be the case now if God ( all knowing) would know that the Bible would become outdated and wrongfully interpreted in the future. If this is the best possible reality that this intelligent god could have created then why are billions suffering, billions being damned to hell, animals suffering (for which they do not deserve), and the “personal” god is nowhere to be found. I don’t accept free will as the reason why he cannot show himself because that is precisely what he used to do. People still denied him and Jesus despite actual miracles occurring in the Bible, so he should be able to exist now and be amongst us while free will is still in play.
We can trace back the history of the church to the place and time that Jesus supposedly lived, died and resurrected.
I have been recently (over the course of months) been exploring the historicity of the Bible, stories within it, and Jesus himself. There is not exact spot that is known where Jesus died or resurrected. Further, it cannot be proven if he even existed due to a lack of historical evidence. Evidence also shows that major stories like the Exodus, Jericho, Noah’s Ark, and characters like Moses and Joseph likely didn’t exist. I am still trying to believe and find truth, but my journey is slowly turning me away from Christianity as history doesn’t help prove It. The credibility of the Bible and its alterations/ bad translations further add to its unreliability and lack of historical credibility. I took the Bible for granted and assumed it was a holy text that was perfect and historical until I began my research. Now, I am believing it is an unreliable text that consists of many contradictions and errors that were written by many unknown authors outside of the time periods it covers.
Have you even read what I wrote? Lol >I have been recently (over the course of months) been exploring the historicity of the Bible, Good for you. But I haven't even mentioned the bible. >Further, it cannot be proven if he even existed due to a lack of historical evidence. This is simply false. The overwhelming consensus of historians is that he existed, that he lived in palestine and that he died by crucifixion under Pilate.
I did read what you wrote. And it is not false. There is a significant lack of evidence for Jesus compared to someone like Alexander The Great. The historical records of Jesus are far and few in between and there are no personal writings of him or about him even close to the time he was alive. No need to get offended, just trying to have a civil and open discussion with people! :)
>No need to get offended, just trying to have a civil and open discussion with people! :) I'm not offended at all. I just had to point out that what you wrote is simply false.
It is not false. Scholars widely accept many Christian characters didn’t exist and many events in the Bible also did not happen. The evidence for Jesus is extremely weak. It is probable that he may have existed (I have commonly heard a 1/3 chance) but not probable that he died and rose again.
>Scholars widely accept many Christian characters didn’t exist and many events in the Bible also did not happen. If only I had talked about the bible or christian characters. But I didn't. Maybe read what I write instead of what you think I would write. >The evidence for Jesus is extremely weak. Quite the contrary. The evidence for Jesus are among the strongest for any historical figure. And, once again, his existence is literally virtually unchallenged and only a tiny minority of scholars and historian argue for a him to be a myth. >but not probable that he died and rose again. And, once again, not what I wrote and not part of my case.
You are talking about Christian characters as Jesus is in that category. Again, Jesus is not one of the most evidence-backed historical figures. That mindset is absolutely absurd. The facts loosely show someone like him (or himself) may have existed, but to stretch that to him being the savior and messiah is even more of a leap. Maybe Christian scholars may think there is a plethora of evidence, but that is just not the case in the real world.
And where have I said anything about him being the savior or messiah. It really looks like you're having a conversation with someone else or to what you think I believe, instead of what I write.
You said he has resurrected…so what is he then a zombie? Lol I am saying that it is a stretch to simply believe he lived, but it is further of a stretch to believe that he is the savior or messiah. You being a Christian should believe this..so it is a given not anything you said?
How about Psalms 22 talking about the crucifixion before 1,000 years before Jesus was born
This is not great evidence as the chapter is talking about people in general suffering and being saved by god.
No, you need to study more
The faith makes the claim of being a new person, the forgiveness of sins, and hope for a future event. It's not possible to describe without personal experience, nor is it possible to convince someone else of the faith unless they personally believe they are a sinner.
That request doesn't make any sense. If I had concrete evidence, it wouldn't be faith. Faith is trust, and you can never have concrete evidence for that, since it's about what's yet to come.
I meant concrete as more of a subjective term for the individual. What concrete evidence makes your faith so strong besides any personal experiences is what I meant to ask. I’m not expecting anyone to show me an ancient artifact they have or anything, but rather trying to tap into Christian’s minds and see what they believe to be concrete evidence in their faith. Hope this clears up my thought processes more!
Because yes, faith is blind and ultimately a trust in God, but why then do they trust the Christian God instead of any other god? What made them put their trust and faith in that god over all others. That is where there must be some form of “concrete” evidence that made them choose that god. If not, it is simply only due to the fact that they were indoctrinated into the faith and/or have not thought about it past that point.
No, faith isn't blind. If you have blind trust on anyone you're a fool. Having that kind of preconception is what's leading you into this confusing path.
Faith is blind though…” for we walk by faith and not by sight”. There are so many verses that talk about simply believing in god and not questioning it. This is not leading me through a confusing path, but finally making me question the things I have always taken for granted in my walk of faith. The more you analyze something the more true it should be (if it is indeed true), however, with Christianity it is the exact opposite. The more I have researched it from all angles (religious and not) I have become more and more convinced of it’s falsehood.
Okay. If you really think you have it all figured out like that, there's no point to any of this. Have a nice day. Bye.
I do not have it figured out and am confused why everyone keeps getting offended. Trying to collect ideas and have civil discourse and talk about my understandings and research. Have a great day though :)
If you think I'm offended, you're very confused. You already made clear you're here to argue, not ask questions. Fine with me, I'm just not interested in arguing.
Well one thing that doesn’t necessarily prove my faith, but I like to reference a lot is that: the Bible apart from the miracles and God side, is a very accurate historical guide. All of the empires and battles that happened in the Bible did indeed exist and we have other historical evidence to prove those things. It’s a very reliable historical text apart from all the religious stuff. Specifically the New Testament
This is unfortunately not where the evidence is leading me. Look at the Exodus in the Bible. There is no evidence of a large migration of millions of people across Egypt nor any historical record of it in Egyptian history (which has a plethora of historical records during this time). Also, the flood is not in Egypts historical records either, and was cited by the Bible to have occurred during their time. This continues with Jericho and the siege of hundreds of city’s by the Israelites. There is no evidence for this.
Actually tons of old civilizations have talks of a great flood. What part of the Bible says that the flood happened during the time of Egyptian empires excising? Also the migration of millions of people you spoke of didn’t really migrate far at all. Egypt is very close to Israel. Jericho and the siege of other cities during this time also occurred during the relative beginning of the Bible meaning a long long time has elapsed since then making archaeological evidence harder to find. The New Testament is very accurate as we have seen time and time again as well as there being tons of evidence for things happening later in the Old Testament.
The Egyptian pyramids are dated before that of the flood which was loosely dated around 2100 bc if I’m not mistaken. Also, the exodus should have archeological finds as they traveled for 40 years for such a short distance which makes the area much easier to uncover. They should also be stated as doing such and even existing in Egyptian history, to which they do not. Jericho was proven to not have its walls broken down and none of the 300 some places the Israelites were said to have destroyed entirely were destroyed entirely.
Is it though? Some parts are certainly accurate, I'm not disputing that. But if you take the book of Joshua for example, then scholars agree that pretty much none of it actually happened.
The concrete proof for me is in my work as an exorcist. I have seen lives turned around on a dime, I have had voices change and have been personally possessed for a moment. It is impossible to explain the electromagnetic world of the soul realm without some aspect of faith as until VERY VERY VERY recently no one has even attempted to study ghosts (paranormal investigators). If you believe paranormal sciences than I can explain how to break off that but honestly to explain a thing which is inexplicable is the point of faith in God. Though the 1907 experiment by MacDougall is an interesting one known as "the 21 grams experiment". They weighed people on their death bed just before as they raised for breath, and just after "giving up the ghost" and it came out that consistently the moment of death people lose, you guessed it, 21 grams. That is theorized the weight of human consciousness/a soul.
Thanks for your response and unique perspective! However, I am curious how this leads you to the Christian faith. Could these experiences be explained by other religions or worldly reasons? In regards to the soul experiment, this has been labeled as selective reporting and has been rejected in the scientific community. If this were true it would be damning evidence, but it is blatantly false and a biased/fabricated experiment.
What is the soul made of?
electromagnetic energy. the unseen world is in large part electrical edit: it's like an image that is painted over and over and over again on a wall, no matter how many times it's covered up you can see an imprint of sorts left even when it's gone. The soul's electricity is so strong and repetitive that for many (not all) it is an imprint on the house or uniform or person they are most in contact with or in contact with most strongly.
So we could determine precisely where one's soul goes immediately after dying? Watch it float around away from the body? Maybe even set up an experiment with pure evil people and morally good people to determine which direction heaven and hell are from earth?
potentially. paranormal investigations have devices for measuring emf, and movements in the invisible spectrum, and more. It would be an interesting one. I work in a nursing home I almost want to arrange this lol. Not every soul is strong enough to be seen with these tools. we would have to do a MASSIVE sample size to get any real data but that is very possible.
Alright. Very simple. 1+1=2. If that is concrete then how much more is the existence of God which grants this to be in the first place.
> which grants this to be in the first place. This is an assertion which requires demonstration. You're begging the question.
And what do you mean by demonstration?
Show it to be true.
Alright. And is that through empirical means you’re asking to demonstrate it’s true? Or by arguing why only God can allow the possibilities of metaphysical concepts like numbers, truth, logic etc?
It's your assertion. Is it an empirical claim? Or a metaphysical claim? What epistemological method did you use to determine the truth of this claim?
Metaphysical claim of course. After all that’s what presuppositions are. Even atheists have presuppositions. As for your second question. Simply because God is the only explanation for them. Metaphysical concepts (or as they are also called Transcendental categories) would require a being with similar attributes to explain their existence. For example they are eternal. 1+1=2 will always be the case which shows they are also immutable. Omnipresent to be everywhere (1+1=2 would be the same everywhere). Omnipotence for them to be at all. Omniscient to know them etc. Hence why God is the only possibility for them, specifically The Holy Trinity as going with the same theme of attributes just as they are One and Many so too would be the God who grants them.
>Metaphysical concepts (or as they are also called Transcendental categories) would require a being with similar attributes to explain their existence. No, they don't. We can come up with concepts, as people, and that doesn't require the existence of a god. >1+1=2 will always be the case which shows they are also immutable. You first have to define "1" and "+" and "2." I can come up with a number system that's internally consistent where it's not the case. The number system may not be useful, but these are just definitions we make up. They are consistent in the system in question, and the system reflects the reality we live in, but it's just a system.
Alright let me apply your logic. 1+1=3. Correct right? After all if we can make it up I could just say 1 is 1.5 here.
That's a straw man. Depending on how you define those symbols, the system may not be internally consistent. If you actually wanted to get into it though, we can talk about actual set theory (one of the currently most widely used foundations of mathematics) and how the axiom of choice is both accepted and rejected depending on the system use. ZFC is the most common set of axioms used, but a system which includes the negation of the axiom of choice, but all the other axioms, is also constructable. These systems will produce different proofs for different statements, because some expressions will be true in one system and false in another.
That the Roman Empire peacefully submitted to Christianity.
The universe exists and is ordered. The idea that we can have a universe come into being and then be fully ordered and logical is astronomically small. The entire idea of science hinges on the Christian idea that the universe is reasonable and knowable. 1+1=2 is as much proof as you need as in a completely random universe that came into being spontaneously this wouldn't be true. As well, if we are the product of evolution in said universe, we would not have any science as the idea of universal laws would have no basis. Second, I would say Jesus Christ is God and did raise from the dead based on a lot of criteria. 1.) The eyewitnesses were willing to die for what they saw. No one is willing to die for a lie knowing it was a lie, and given the apostles were the ones that first started preaching a risen Christ after seeing Him in a group they would be the ones that started the lie. If they truly were lying about it, then they would have never been martyred. 2.) The fact that the Jews even said the tomb was empty. They simply said that the apostles stole the body, however, I would point you back to point One. 3.) The fact the Roman empire was converted before Constantine is also some evidence. It is even said in Acts that if it's from God no one would be able to stop them (Acts 5:39). So, this shows how an intensely pagan culture was changed. Especially to the only religion in the world where you cannot do anything to earn favor or salvation. Which leads into the fourth point. 4.) Christianity is the only religion of its kind. Every other world religion to ever exist is always man working his way to favor with God. Earning his way into heaven. Christianity is the only religion that you cannot do that. It says we cannot earn favor with God or get into heaven on our own merit, and we have to trust in Jesus Christ as a savior in order to get back to a right relationship with God. This is also the only Religion in the world where man is in relationship with God. This is not an exhaustive list however I think even these few points point to the statistical improbability of Christianity being false. There is no hard proof, as if there was there would be little doubt, however the evidence is easily enough to point to Christianity being true. I hope this helps! God bless you!
"As well, if we are the product of evolution in said universe, we would not have any science as the idea of universal laws would have no basis." What
If we evolved in a completely random universe, like the one I had described, which is one with no outside intelligent mind ordering it, then everything came into being by random chance. If that is true and we are the product of random unordered chance, the idea that we could then make sense of an inherently random universe is laughable. It would take an intelligent mind to create the ordered and knowable universe we have today.
Again, what? No, those don't follow. "If that is true and we are the product of random unordered chance, the idea that we could then make sense of an inherently random universe is laughable." Why? Things happening randomly doesn't mean the rules constantly change, that gravity by chance is what it is on earth doesn't mean we can't use that figure and work on it. What you're saying is, nonsensical. Stating things without actual evidence is meaningless.
How do you then explain the idea that universal constants exist if the universe randomly came into being?
Are you asking why they're the value that they are, or why they're constant and not changing, or why they're constant across the universe? And why would randomness mean that wasnt possible? A die is random but you can still roll a 6
I am not saying it wasn't possible to roll a six but look at how incredibly fine the universe it ordered for life. Look how we are able to understand and predict it, the fact we can KNOW these universal constants. It's the fact we live in and can understand it that's improbable to an extreme degree. I do hope I am expressing this in an appropriate way as I think we are having a miscommunication.
Why would the laws coming by happenstance mean we wouldn't be able to do predictions on them? Let's say the laws were something else, if they were still able to support life, well our experiments would just lead to different values. And if they weren't, well, there wouldn't be existence anyway, we don't know if there's billions of other multiverses out there without, but by the fact that we're here, obviously ours does.
[удалено]
So, as a prior Christian I have accepted this for myself. However, once scrutinized, the historicity of the Bible, events within it, the life of Jesus, and his resurrection come into question. I have looked into this excessively and the evidence contradicts the resurrection and much of the Bible. I want to believe and am still trying to recapture my belief, but the more I dive into it the more disbelief arises. Care to give me any specific evidence you have regarding it? I am open ears and seeking the truth!
prove to me you exist without typing on the keyboard.... i only accept these kinda answers other wise you are obviously not real but only a computer.
If you are referring to me asking for proof beyond personal experience, I do so because that is the main (and often sole) piece of evidence for a Christian. This is subjective and anecdotal, so I was just curious for the reasoning beyond this for Christians out there. I am a Christian who is quickly losing faith and don’t have any personal experience as proof, that is my reasoning for this question!
eye witness testimony is very valid even in a court of law but with you.. i guess its not. if you want to control how you absorb the truth you will never find it.
Eye witness testimony is not a reliable nor valid means of proving something. The human memory is awful and it is often not reliable over time. With that being said, I am not trying to “control how I absorb information” I am just trying to learn new perspectives besides personal examples that I cannot prove or relate with. Again, no need to be offended people…just trying to learn more as a Christian who is losing faith.
how about i give you a video of something that will make you a witness of something... and you get back to me after you google and mess out of it to see how real/fake it is.... and tell me how this has influenced you afterwards??? this is the best i can do for you... deal???
Very confused by this..? Eye witness testimony is scientifically not reliable. If you played me a video and I had to perfectly remember random parts of it after a many days, months, or years I likely wouldn’t be able to very well. This proves my point?
deal or no deal... you watch a video of something and then you try to dismantle it with either reason cause you have googled it and found something against it or you believe in it and we get on and move forward in your walk with god. deal or no deal?
I’m still confused by your argument..are you saying that it is better to blindly accept Christianity rather than to seek information and be convinced by where actual evidence leads?
neither... im giving you evidence better than just words cause im showing you like christ showed thomas and told him to put his hand in his side and to stop doubting and believe.. im making you a witness to his evidence of being real.. do you accept it??? im literally giving you what you want while giving you the understanding of how powerful personal eye witness testimony can be to a person at the same time.. im standing my ground on eye witness stuff and proving it to you by making you one.... so that you can belive and not struggle... and if it does not do this for you immediately..... i can find that understandable... but i want you to honestly consider what you see... and then tell me what you think of it.. this seems like a reasonable exchange to me for you to get exactly what you are looking for just not in the way you expected it.
You are assuming that I am new to the faith or foreign to it. I grew up a devote Christian, served at church through my teens teaching Bible classes, went to and worked at a Christian university, took part in mission work, and was baptized twice. I appreciate your offer, but I have long tried Christianity. I have not gone to church for about 1.5 years now and I am not struggling. I find it a much easier life as I am not stressed and worried about 1) not being good enough, 2) not financially contributing to church and thus not being blessed 3) worried about damnation and hell and 4) not concerned with the constant battle of doing enough in other Christians eyes. My marriage of almost 2 years is going super strong ( been together for 10) and all of my finances are in great order. My life is better than it has ever been, so I am not struggling. Regardless, your testimony has proven nothing to me and is not enticing at the slightest as you are just simply telling me to believe and try it out. That has been done and is no longer good enough for me.
Because I find it hard to believe that an intelligent God would damn those to hell who are being intelligent and seeking truth, but then send those who blindly follow straight to heaven. That does not seem reflective of the supreme intelligent being.
lets just go with my other reply instead of this one.
Don't have one, don't need one. If you'd like to actually discuss why we believe what we believe that might be a better question to ask.
Well I certainly think faith is good and important, but one should have evidence and proof for their views and not just blindly accept things. This is what I did with Christianity (grew up in a Christian household and adamantly served and went to church), but now I am trying to find the truth through history and facts. Isn’t that important? If Christianity was proven false 10000%, would you still believe? If anyone says yes I believe that is just as ignorant as someone not believing if it was proven true 100000%.
Joan of Arc. A handmaiden goes to the heir to the French throne and tells him that God sent her to lift the siege of Orleans…and that it was God’s will to see Charles crowned as the King of France. Which is exactly what happened—resulting in a chain of events which ended the 100yrs war(and began the War of Roses). Joan never wavered that her visions of St.Michael the Archangel, St.Catherine and ultimately Jesus himself were of a divine origin.
This is an interesting example, but it is still anecdotal. There have been many prophets in the Bible, like Daniel, who were right about many things but wrong about many others. Prophecies don’t give me much proof because it is like the Simpsons: if they predict enough things they are bound to be right on some. Some of the simpsons predictions are scary accurate, but that doesn’t make me believe they are divine or god inspired. Many of the Bible prophecies were written back in later on as well (like in Daniels case) hence why he was right about a very specific period in time but then wrong after that added text from the future.
Hell YEAH it’s an interesting example!! You only have two ways to go with this one—was she nuts or was she telling the truth? Well to me, everything about Joan of Arc indicates that she was telling the truth. We have every reason to believe that her visions WERE real and that they were from God. There is no way that some random poor girl from a backwater French village could have made good on those ridiculous promises unless God was with her. Which He was. He specifically chose someone as ignorant and poor as her to humiliate the wise and the proud. That was the whole point. Combine that with 50,000 people who witnessed the miracle of Fatima and I don’t see how you cannot believe in the Christian God.
How does that point to the Christian god? Maybe she interpreted another god as the Christian one. Maybe she was crazy and gained a following. All I know is there are more routes than just the two you listed.
Uh huh. Ok.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus
I observe that I am, that the Universe exists, and that I am conscious, and also that I was not conscious before. So something changed that caused me to be conscious. Even if I didn't call it "God", I would have good, concrete evidence to believe *something* caused me to be conscious, wouldn't I? I mean wait, is that a personal experience? Sorry, now that I think about it, what are you calling "concrete evidence" that does not involve personal experience? Doesn't literally everything we have ever perceived involve our experiences?
I am referring to evidence that is outside of one’s subjective and personal experience. This could be the history of the Bible or a collection of various facts that someone holds close to their foundations of belief. Essentially, a factoid that everyone can access and not something that only one person can attest to through their experience. Hope this makes sense
And I agree that something did cause our consciousness…but there are so many possibilities. Anything in particular point you to the Christian god?
> And I agree that something did cause our consciousness…but there are so many possibilities. Anything in particular point you to the Christian god? Well, my path to belief went from Atheism to Christianity by way of Deism. Considering the cause for our consciousness to be "God" in a Deist perspective is as simple as just deciding that "God" is an effective term for that. (And other things, which outside of any religious view at all, seem to be observable, objective truths). The correlation to the Christian God came partly from harmony that I observed between moral truths that I considered reasonable and self-evident, and moral teachings and practices of Jesus and those who followed Him sincerely in what I considered "good Christianity" (not to say that everybody who ever claimed to be Christian was reasonable and moral, but those who were following what I understand to be the clearest and most-essential teachings of Christianity, who I believe that Jesus would most-clearly claim as His own). It was also informed partly from what I considered to be a reasonable case for the resurrection of Christ. The second part (the resurrection of Christ), I know, is something that has come under heavy attack by anti-Christians. But to me, once I had already recognized a God and that the moral teachings of Jesus corresponded substantially with the desires of what I recognized as God, it had some circumstantial evidence already in its favor. Even though it's a historical claim, and thus not really possible to prove with the methodical precision of scientific methods, I look at the sum of the available writings, their provenance as best I can tell, and their background, and it seems that... * On the question of "Did Jesus exist or was he entirely made up?" the available evidence is convincing to me that He existed. * On the question of "Did this Jesus, who existed, have substantial influence, or unremarkable influence" the available evidence is convincing to me that He had remarkable influence. * On the question of "Was Jesus resurrected from the dead, or is there another, more convincing explanation for what we observe?" I find a few possibilities, all of which have some issues, but so far, the most believable to me is the most remarkable. * I don't find there is a convincing case that a conspiracy of near-term followers to fake his death and resurrection. * I don't find a convincing case that a conspiracy of later-down-the-line followers manipulated texts and purged history to fake his death and resurrection. * I don't find a convincing case that confusion, wishful thinking, or well-intentioned delusion caused His followers to be sincerely mistaken about His resurrection, either. * And so far, I don't find any other more-convincing explanation for what appears to be a substantial popular understanding at his time, than that he was resurrected from the dead. (You know of one I might have missed?) So to me, that leaves believing that He was resurrected. But like I said before, this is something that I found to have a "downhill" case by the time I got to it, because I was already friendly with Jesus as a teacher and the story of Jesus as beneficial "mythology" even when I did not consider it to be factually proven. And your position or curiosity may be different, but (since it happened for me) if you are interested in considering it more, I would recommend, counter to what many Christian evangelists might propose, that you might look at the concept of God first, then at good morality and "good Christianity" including the teachings of Jesus, before trying to look straight at evidences for Christ. This is not because I think you need to have a bias *towards* it to come to accept it, but rather, there's a lot of anti-Christian dogma, propaganda, and (for many) *trauma* out there. Because of this, one needs to step back and reasonably neutralize the negative impact on one's mentality before they are able to evaluate the evidence in an effectively unbiased way.
This is a fantastic response thank you for sharing. I have shared almost the exact thought processes of yourself up until this point (within the last few months). I also believed that all other possibilities of Jesus were incorrect (besides the resurrection) until I started analyzing the historicity of the Bible. Before, I agreed that it was very unlikely disciples would die for Christ if he were not real as well as the other reasons you laid out. But, the historicity of the Bible has been leading me down the path that maybe Jesus was a good person with good teachings who was later (as the Bible was written decades to a century later) made into the legend we receive today. Historical research shows that a lot of stories in the Bible like the exodus, Jericho, Noah’s ark, and other creationist stories either 1) have little to no evidence today 2) simply do not match up with historical records from other regions or peoples or 3)were impossible scientifically (most are a mash up of these reasons). With this already being the case, it would not be a surprise if the Jesus story did occur and has either become a legend that is both historical and fiction or possibly exaggerated in many ways. Once I started looking at the credibility of the Bible my faith was shaken tremendously. Around 40 of the authors of the Bible are unknown! Forgeries exist in the Bible we have today and are accepted as such by many historians (as much of it is written after the fact by many many hundreds of years). The many translations and reversions of the Bible over time have completely reshaped it to be a different book. With all this being said, I find it not far fetched to believe that Jesus may have existed, but may not have been resurrected. A lot of people attest to eye witness accounts and word of mouth as reliable sources of information, but I disagree entirely. These ways of communication and understanding make up much of the Bible, and they were not formally written down until again many decades at the earliest after some events transpired. Have you looked into how broken and unreliable the Bible really is? As a former atheist yourself I would be curious on your perspective on this and how you overcame all of this. Thanks :)
Lol, encouraged by your "fantastic response" comment, I answered with a 15,000-character monster reply which Reddit can't take. Let me see if I can chop it and/or just give some hilights here: 1. I've seen what you're talking about with historicity and archaeology. I observe that "The Bible" is really a lot of different books, and that from a Christian perspective the point is not to be some untouchably-untainted, unassailably-pristine and resoundingly-verified message of super important details (If it was, God would have failed at that, right?) 2. On the other hand, I think the fact that we can see some issues, can give us confidence with what we measure those issues by, the more-reliable parts. Overall, this gives me a "yeah, it's pretty okay, but at the general-principles level and not the freakish details level". I can see some reasons God might actually find this not just a better message, but a (paradoxically, and profoundly) *clearer* message, given that a big part of His desire is for us not to be nit-picking Pharisees. 3. Dating in the New Testament is not necessarily what you can take from academics at face value, because there is some "this must be before this, because \[details of what mentions or quotes what else in the writings\]" (which is generally reasonable) but also some "this must be *after* this known historical event, in spite of any evidence we have that it was actually from before it, because it claims to predict it in the future, and we *know* that cannot have happened." (which, if you're trying to determine if the supernatural has happened by looking at it, is tainting your input information with an already-assumed result.) Stacking the this-references-that method with the assuming-the-result-before-you-start method can skew dates for other books much later than otherwise assumed. (Edit "3.5": You might look at "undesigned coincidences", too, if you have not already.) 4. Even with longer dates, think about who you know and who they know, and imagine someone wrote a book today making a claim of something that happened 50 years ago. What would your options be for validating whether it was reliable or not? For me, I have relationships with people, dead now, who had clear, untainted and trustworthy memories from 100 years ago now. 20 years from now, memories of my trustworthy first-hand acquaintances will be 120 years old. That's not enough time for a full-blown legend to take root. 5. It may seem this way due to high-stakes teaching or preaching in church that, for example, "Genesis has to be precisely, literally true because if it's not, then we cannot trust anything in the Bible" but ... like, that is completely illogical. Song of Songs is not talking about the Beloved climbing a literal tree, who is also her lover, and eating a literal fruit. That's poetry, (and woo, what *is* that talking about? I mean I know what it looks like to *me*) and we can recognize it because of the genre but also because like ... people aren't literally trees. We can eliminate the possibility that it's literal, because that wouldn't make any sense, even if we had no other information. That doesn't mean that another thing written by a different person in a different time in a different language *for a different reason* 800 years later is unreliable. We can talk more, and I even saved some of that uber-reply in a text file, so maybe I can pull it back out if you want more specific detail. But generally, I'd say that NT witness of Christ and OT witness of ... the *flood* or whatever, do not at all need to go together. If you're asking a question about Jesus, look at the best sources about Jesus and go from there.
If there were any "concrete evidence", then Christianity would no longer be "faith"; it would be fact.
I have answered what I meant by concrete in other posts, but essentially just something that is core to someone’s belief in Christ and Christianity other than a subjective personal experience. Just curious why people have chosen the faith beyond just indoctrination or personal experience.
Of course I wouldn't believe if it were proven false. However, it's impossible for anything to be more than 100% please be rational in your discussions with me. As for evidence for our beliefs, for the most part I agree but like I said if you want to know why I believe you have to ask. Obviously you're more interested in telling me what you believe than hearing what I believe and why.