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

[anonymous person]

Reasons he provides.

Do you find that only honest people agree with you?

Are you open to the idea that you are wrong about gods, and that they are only characters in books? Or is that option closed for you?

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth. I seek accurate descriptions of reality.

The evidence seems to point to gods being simply characters in books. What happened to that "case" you were going to make that that deity of yours?

Understandable, in that he does not come to the same conclusions as you.

Sure, but can you demonstrate him to be wrong?

Google "responses to Bart Ehrman".

Thanks.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm finding more and more people like you, who claim they were Christian before and now they're not. The difference with me is that I claimed to be Christian for a long time and now I realize I really wasn't a true Christian until I fully accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior with all my heart, soul and mind. My mind being the last thing I finally gave to him. I stopped thinking I could know everything and instead put my complete trust in Jesus and let Him teach me.

Yeah... did all that. Deconverted anyway.

I'd believe you when you say you know all the arguments for the existence of God if you actually knew all things at all times, but this is not the case so I'm pretty sure you don't actually know all the arguments for the existence of God and I have a feeling we haven't even scratched the surface of all the arguments for the existence of God.

Then lets say I know the most popular arguments for a god's existence.

Your point?

 

[anonymous person]

Yeah... did all that. Deconverted anyway.



Then lets say I know the most popular arguments for a god's existence.

Your point?

His point was that your statement was false.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

His point was that your statement was false.

I see you're unfamiliar with the idea of a statement having a "spirit" apart from it's actual wording. For example, intelligent people don't hear the sentence "My wife is going to kill me" and worry that a homicide is about to occur. Similarly, my statement was obviously meant to imply that I was very familiar with arguments for a god's existence.

But it's ok. Perhaps English isn't your first language, so hopefully this has helped...

 

[anonymous person]

I see you're unfamiliar with the idea of a statement having a "spirit" apart from it's actual wording. For example, intelligent people don't hear the sentence "My wife is going to kill me" and worry that a homicide is about to occur. Similarly, my statement was obviously meant to imply that I was very familiar with arguments for a god's existence.

But it's ok. Perhaps English isn't your first language, so hopefully this has helped...

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Davian]

Google "responses to Bart Ehrman".

Thanks.

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[anonymous person]

I'll take that as a "no".

Take it as:

Google "responses to Bart Ehrman".

Thanks.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't really feel like going through every shred of evidence for human existence to figure this out so I'll ask you: How do you know it hasn't?

I don't know - that's why I'm not the one making an assertion. Evidence for human existence is self-evident, and of itself says nothing about when the concept of God was conceived; so - again - what rationale do you have for your assertion?

Except an infinite timeless universe does not make sense because we can observe an apparent beginning to the universe. Its true that we observe an apparent beginning of the universe, therefore, its unreasonable to assume the universe is infinite. Just because we can't directly observe the universe beginning does not mean its not true that it didn't begin. The fact that we observe an apparent beginning points more to it having a beginning rather than it being infinite, unless you're just being unreasonable and want to ignore what we actually observe.

Ironically, you're using the right word - 'apparent' beginning. The science of cosmology only tells us it was the start of a period of expansion from a very hot, dense state. It says nothing about where that hot, dense state came from. The consensus of cosmologists is that an actual singularity is probably impossible, but that we have no evidence yet of what there might have been. So strictly speaking, it's the beginning of the currently describable universe. It's generally described as 'the beginning of the universe' in the same shorthand way as the observable universe is generally described as 'the universe'; the distinction isn't generally significant unless you're explicitly talking about it.

In fact Ockham's Razor would support the more simple explanation that the universe has a beginning especially since this is what we observe.

Ockham's Razor deals with introducing redundant explanatory entities. Positing an eternal and timeless universe (where the big bang is an event) adds no entities to the argument, neither does a temporally closed universe that 'just is' (where the big bang is like a North Pole, with no prior time). There are philosophical arguments against both, but they'd equally apply to an infinite and timeless God concept, and they are the least of its philosophical problems, Ockham's Razor and special pleading apart.

Do I have to agree with everything Einstein favored or can I actually think for myself?

You can think and believe what you like. I was just pointing out that for those who feel the need for it, there are God concepts compatible with our observations of the universe and that make no unsupported claims or assumptions about it.

I don't seek worldly knowledge, which is exactly why I can think outside the box.

There's your problem. The question concerns fundamental knowledge about the world - its origins. Thinking outside the box is creative and useful if you know where the edges of the box (of worldly knowledge) are, and you can relate it to, and apply it in, the world; but if it bears no relation to the world, it's less than speculation, it's fantasy - by definition ("An idea with no basis in reality" - Oxford Dictionary).

 

[anonymous person]

I don't know - that's why I'm not the one making an assertion. Evidence for human existence is self-evident, and of itself says nothing about when the concept of God was conceived; so - again - what rationale do you have for your assertion?

Ironically, you're using the right word - 'apparent' beginning. The science of cosmology only tells us it was the start of a period of expansion from a very hot, dense state. It says nothing about where that hot, dense state came from. The consensus of cosmologists is that an actual singularity is probably impossible, but that we have no evidence yet of what there might have been. So strictly speaking, it's the beginning of the currently describable universe. It's generally described as 'the beginning of the universe' in the same shorthand way as the observable universe is generally described as 'the universe'; the distinction isn't generally significant unless you're explicitly talking about it.


Ockham's Razor deals with introducing redundant explanatory entities. Positing an eternal and timeless universe (where the big bang is an event) adds no entities to the argument, neither does a temporally closed universe that 'just is' (where the big bang is like a North Pole, with no prior time). There are philosophical arguments against both, but they'd equally apply to an infinite and timeless God concept, and they are the least of its philosophical problems, Ockham's Razor and special pleading apart.


You can think and believe what you like. I was just pointing out that for those who feel the need for it, there are God concepts compatible with our observations of the universe and that make no unsupported claims or assumptions about it.


There's your problem. The question concerns fundamental knowledge about the world - its origins. Thinking outside the box is creative and useful if you know where the edges of the box (of worldly knowledge) are, and you can relate it to, and apply it in, the world; but if it bears no relation to the world, it's less than speculation, it's fantasy - by definition ("An idea with no basis in reality" - Oxford Dictionary).

Jesus of Nazareth. Start there.

 

[bhsmte]

Jesus of Nazareth. Start there.

Start there and what?

 

[Davian]

Take it as:

Google "responses to Bart Ehrman".

Thanks.

Or, as "Look up the evidence to support my assertions, and when that fails, look up the counter arguments".

The case for this hypothetical deity of yours gets even thinner.

 

[anonymous person]

Start there and what?

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

 

[anonymous person]

Or, as "Look up the evidence to support my assertions, and when that fails, look up the counter arguments".

The case for this hypothetical deity of yours gets even thinner.

Read Ehrman's stuff and read the responses.

Read arguments from both sides, that is what I did.

I am not asking you to read just stuff that Christians write. But read stuff from both sides and follow the evidence where it leads, if you are willing.

 

[bhsmte]

Read Ehrman's stuff and read the responses.

Read arguments from both sides, that is what I did.

I am not asking you to read just stuff that Christians write. But read stuff from both sides and follow the evidence where it leads, if you are willing.

I have read Ehrman and what his naysayers have to say about him and he has plenty, because he has ticked off a lot of folks.

Ehrman is not the end all be all, but his credentials are first rate and he raises some very important points, which many in his field have tended to gloss over.

I was a christian most of my life and it was a thorough review of the NT, that started my process of serious doubt, because of what I learned. One thing to consider and it is important, the vast majority of NT scholars and historians are Christians themselves and the bible has always had somewhat of a "tread lightly" around it and don't criticize it too much, because it is after all; the bible.

In all my review of the NT from reading the work of various scholars and historians, is that the NT is much more a work of theology, than it is a work of credible history. Nothing wrong with that, because religions are based on theology and if one has faith in it and it works for them, more power to them.

 

[bhsmte]

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

If one has faith in that and it works for them, great.

 

[anonymous person]

If one has faith in that and it works for them, great.

It is the most blessed thing anyone can experience as a human being. Intimate communion with their loving maker. I want you to experience this. That is why I spend the time I do here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Jesus of Nazareth. Start there.

I will if you can point me to some contemporary corroborative evidence for the bible's claim that he existed. I know of independent contemporary evidence for Herod and Pontius Pilate and some other major figures of the stories; what about Jesus? Just a link or two would help.

 

[anonymous person]

I have read Ehrman and what his naysayers have to say about him and he has plenty, because he has ticked off a lot of folks.

Ehrman is not the end all be all, but his credentials are first rate and he raises some very important points, which many in his field have tended to gloss over.

I was a christian most of my life and it was a thorough review of the NT, that started my process of serious doubt, because of what I learned. One thing to consider and it is important, the vast majority of NT scholars and historians are Christians themselves and the bible has always had somewhat of a "tread lightly" around it and don't criticize it too much, because it is after all; the bible.

In all my review of the NT from reading the work of various scholars and historians, is that the NT is much more a work of theology, than it is a work of credible history. Nothing wrong with that, because religions are based on theology and if one has faith in it and it works for them, more power to them.

Christianity is based on a historical figure and a historical event.

A man that walked the earth and then was raised from the dead after He was crucified.

 

[bhsmte]

It is the most blessed thing anyone can experience as a human being. Intimate communion with their loving maker. I want you to experience this. That is why I spend the time I do here.

I appreciate that, but you are not in a position to determine what is right for me personally, just as I am in no position to do the same for you.

We can debate back and forth on how one concludes what they do, but that is different than claiming to know how someone else should believe, or not believe.

 

[bhsmte]

Christianity is based on a historical figure and a historical event.

A man that walked the earth and then was raised from the dead after He was crucified.

Christianity is based on a figure that was likely to be a real historical figure. Now, in regards to what this person did, what this person said, is where the historical credibility is either very weak, or non existent.

But again, this is why it requires faith.