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

[anonymous person]

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.

Google it.

 

[anonymous person]

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.

Would your Maker be in such a position?

 

[anonymous person]

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.

Why do you say it is very weak or non-existent?

 

[Davian]

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.

Willing to go on a snipe hunt for you? No, thanks. Did you follow the evidence, or did you already believe?

I have read his stuff, and arguments from both sides, and I am still waiting for you back at post #197.

 

[Davian]

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.

Anything about this experience rise above simply being imagined?

 

[anonymous person]

Anything about this experience rise above simply being imagined?

Everything.

 

[Chriliman]

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?

I'm not asserting anything, I'm claiming what I believe and backing my beliefs with reason.

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.

So are we in agreement that its more reasonable to assume the universe began and that its less reasonable to assume the universe is eternal or infinite? My reasoning for it being more reasonable to assume it began is because we observe it having an apparent beginning. This reasoning is very subtle but it does make sense.

We can compare it to a video of an explosion. We view the video in reverse observing the explosion going backwards towards a beginning, but right before we get to the beginning of the explosion the video is cut off. So is it more reasonable to assume the explosion had a cause that began the explosion or is it more reasonable to assume the explosion did not have a cause? I understand we're talking about two different events here, but I'm just trying to emphasize my reasoning.

So if we agree its more reasonable to assume the universe had a beginning and this then means the universe is not eternal or infinite. We can then safely assume the beginning of the universe was caused by something. It would then be safe to assume that this cause could be an infinite timeless force that is separate from the universe. Again this is all based on safe assumptions, therefore, it becomes reasonable to believe in an infinite timeless force capable of creating the universe, this force would be God. This is my very subtle, but significant reasoning for my belief that God created the universe. Its also just one reason of many reasons that I believe in God.

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.

But as I explained above its actually less reasonable to assume the Big Bang was just an event in an eternal universe.

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.

Can you link to these god concepts so I can determine if they are right or wrong then I'll let you know my findings

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).

Are you saying my reasoning is fantasy? I think my reasoning is well within the relations of the world. If I realize a nuance in reasoning that has been missed by many because I've been deeply praying for Jesus to protect my mind from evil and for God my Father to teach me His truth, I think thats pretty good evidence that you should consider this God that I'm saying is very real.

Many Christians have said in the past that the God we believe in does make sense and He is reasonable and we just really want you to believe in Him because He can literally explain everything from why the universe began to good and evil to why we exist to miracles to why we haven't found aliens yet to why Islamic extremists are so evil to why a man and a women make a perfect pair when married under His authority to why love exists to why hate exists to the purpose of Jesus dying on the Cross and raising from the dead so that all who believe can have eternal life, I could literally go on and on.

 

[bhsmte]

Would your Maker be in such a position?

What maker?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is true. You will not convince me that Christ does not abide in me and I in Him.

So you are not open to revising your beliefs under any circumstances, contrary to what you implied earlier?

But be not downcast by this. You can still make an attempt at persuading me that the Bible is a load of garbage or that Jesus was not God incarnate or that the universe has always existed.

Make an attempt? You just conceded that nothing I could say would ever be enough to prompt you to reconsider your beliefs.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't leap. I step.

Onto thin ice.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So every concept and theory science comes up with to explain existence are just claims as well, not proof, right? They're claiming a multi-verse could exist, but they have no proof, so its up to you to believe them.

To the best of my understanding, those are still hypotheses, not theories.

Do you assert that God does not exist?

No. I assert that I am not convinced that there is a god.

If not then it must mean you actually don't know. All I'm saying is give it time and you will know.

Know what? Your posts make little sense.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Google "responses to Bart Ehrman".

Thanks.

 

[Davian]

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.

Allegedly. What is this historical event that you allude to?

 

[Davian]

Everything.

But nothing specific, or demonstrable?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that we ought to chage our beliefs when cars and computers are seen as more of a miracle than people.

 

[anonymous person]

What maker?

Your Maker.

If as the Bible claims, you are made in the image and likeness of God, would He be in a position to determine what is right for you?

 

[anonymous person]

But nothing specific, or demonstrable?

You have something specific in mind?

 

[anonymous person]

Allegedly. What is this historical event that you allude to?

Resurrection

 

[anonymous person]

What seems so dark to thy dim sight
May be a shadow, seen aright
Making some brightness doubly bright.
The flash that struck thy tree--no more
To shelter thee--lets heaven's blue floor
Shine where it never shone before.
The cry wrung from thy spirit's pain
May echo on some far-off plain,
And guide a wanderer home again.

"The blue of heaven is larger than the clouds."

 

[Chriliman]

To the best of my understanding, those are still hypotheses, not theories.

No. I assert that I am not convinced that there is a god.

Know what? Your posts make little sense.

It helps to put on your thinking cap when reading my posts

If you're unwilling to really think about what I'm saying for fear of figuring out you're actually wrong then that's your problem. So far you've given me no reason to think I'm wrong. Which was my original intent of the OP. If you can't figure out why my reasoning is wrong why should I be expected to change my beliefs?