[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Freodin]

How I get "it is true that Jesus rose from the dead" is simple. After honestly looking at the evidence, the evidence pointed me to that conclusion. I accepted it and then once I did this, God confirmed to me that it indeed was true.

Ask seek and knock.

What evidence were you looking at, other than the one I mentioned?

 

[KCfromNC]

I made an entire thread based on how we shouldn't assume things first but rather observe and ask honest questions, did you see that thread? C'mon give me a break here, you're falsely representing my beliefs in order to make your case, which is dishonest.

I guess accusing people of dishonesty is easier than answering the points they raise. If I didn't have a good explanation I guess I'd try to distract people from that fact as well.

It is interesting that the only thing atheist worry about not believing in is God.

It would be interesting if it were true. Too bad it isn't.

All I'm saying is the evidence of God hasn't been presented to atheists yet, but in time it will be.

Like many of the other things you say, that's all it is - empty talk.

Except if evidence that proves God does not exist was found then me being a liar wouldn't really matter because after I die I wouldn't be punished for such a grievous lie, instead I'd get off scotch free into nothingness.

If the only thing keeping you moral is your belief in eternal punishment, please keep believing. Luckily most people have a more mature sense of morality than this approach.

 

[asherahSamaria]

How I get "it is true that Jesus rose from the dead" is simple. After honestly looking at the evidence, the evidence pointed me to that conclusion. I accepted it and then once I did this, God confirmed to me that it indeed was true.

Ask seek and knock.

I too would like to know "what evidence"?

 

[KCfromNC]

I do. Especially when these people have good reasons for believing what they do and have evidence and changed lives to boot.

Seems like you'd have to follow a lot of mutually contradictory religions then, since all of the big ones have this in their favor.

 

[KCfromNC]

If they do affirm this then surely you can supply references that will bear this out.

google "evidence for the empty tomb".

Anyone else sense a double standard here?

 

[KCfromNC]

Right, but if I am lying and it turns out to be true that there is no God to determine truth from lies, then doesn't that mean in the end truth has no meaning and lies have no meaning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

"Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences."

The fact that you don't like the consequences of your assumption being wrong doesn't make it correct. That's a logical fallacy.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Excellent.



Internal evidence supports pre A.D. 70 dates for the synoptic gospels. Paul's letters are dated even earlier and the sources for Paul's works would be dated even earlier for they were in circulation already at this time, likely within the same decade that Jesus' crucifixion took place. Many of the eyewitnesses to the events recorded by these men would still be alive and would have been able to expose as liars, these men had they written anything contrary to what was actually witnessed to have happened. Hostile testimony from the Pharisees is the most telling, for they themselves give testimony that the tomb was empty on the Sunday following the crucifixion.

The fact that the original autographs are not at our disposal is simply immaterial. Had the copies of the originals shown any evidence of deviation from the autographs, those who had written them and those who had read the originals would have been all too willing and able to reveal them as having been amended.

Very little if any original ancient historical texts contemporaneous with the NT texts have survived over the centuries. Historians are not unduly worried by this.

I agree. The NT as a whole is more a work of theology than history, but where the NT acts as a conduit for historical knowledge, it has never been proven to be inaccurate.

"Historians are not unduly worried by this" - then those aren't very good historians. My understanding is that the original versions of Mark (the earliest gospel by decades) ended with Mary and co finding an empty tomb, with the post tomb scenes added much later? Considering this seems to be an important thing for Christians don't you find it somewhat disturbing that it's been messed around with so much.

 

[anonymous person]

What evidence were you looking at, other than the one I mentioned?

Google evidence for the resurrection.

 

[anonymous person]

I too would like to know "what evidence"?

Google evidence for the resurrection.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Google evidence for the resurrection.

What evidence convinced you?

 

[anonymous person]

Seems like you'd have to follow a lot of mutually contradictory religions then, since all of the big ones have this in their favor.

I don't share your view so no, I don't have to follow a lot of religions.

 

[anonymous person]

Anyone else sense a double standard here?

I never forbid the person from telling me to use google.

He can tell me to Google something and I will Google it if he likes.

 

[anonymous person]

"Historians are not unduly worried by this" - then those aren't very good historians. My understanding is that the original versions of Mark (the earliest gospel by decades) ended with Mary and co finding an empty tomb, with the post tomb scenes added much later? Considering this seems to be an important thing for Christians don't you find it somewhat disturbing that it's been messed around with so much.

Nevertheless the tomb was empty, which is my point.

 

[anonymous person]

A c

What evidence convinced you?

A cumulative case for the resurrection.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Nevertheless the tomb was empty, which is my point.

But you didn't address my question.

 

[asherahSamaria]

A c

A cumulative case for the resurrection.

Dodging the question again.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Personally I think people should change their beliefs when they realize that holding them would make them irrational, i.e. change on pain of irrationality.

That answers the second question mostly, but what about the first?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nevertheless the tomb was empty, which is my point.

How do you leap from an empty tomb to a bodily resurrection and subsequent heavenly ascension? And please don't bother telling me to "google it."

 

[asherahSamaria]

How do you leap from an empty tomb to a bodily resurrection and subsequent heavenly ascension? And please don't bother telling me to "google it."

It's my understanding that early Christians didn't think there was a bodily resurrection at all but that it was purely "spiritual" (whatever that actually means). It was only much later that the story was embellished to compete with all the other god stories who could do resurrection - either their own or other peoples..

 

[Chriliman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

"Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences."

The fact that you don't like the consequences of your assumption being wrong doesn't make it correct. That's a logical fallacy.

I'm not stating my assumptions, I'm stating my beliefs and I'm explaining the knowledge I've gained from my beliefs about reality. You have a belief that reality was not created by God, I have a belief that reality was created by God. This is really the only difference between yours and my beliefs.

So I'm justified in saying the exact same thing back at you: The fact that you don't like the consequences of your assumption that God did not create reality being wrong doesn't make it correct. That's a logical fallacy.

The only difference between my logic and your logic is that your logic can't explain existence whereas my logic can. So logically anyone viewing our conversation who has no pre-conceived notions about reality and existence would believe my logic because it actually explains things, they would then be justified in changing their beliefs about my logic if my logic turns out to be proven wrong, but if my logic is never proven wrong then logically it is the truth.