"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

[cvanwey]

I'm beginning to suspect that the problem here is lack of familiarity with historicity concerns in general. When I use the term, I'm referring broadly to the question of how much in the New Testament is grounded in history, not merely about whether Jesus existed and if specific events occurred.

And like I said, many times now, what difference does this make?

The OT, NT, Qur'an, other, being corroborated, in regards to the claims of the existence of historical figures, places, and physical events in history, lend no further credibility to the claims of the 'divine', 'supernatural', other.

Again, sure, if the NT historicity is [low], in regards to objective findings, or we come to find out Jesus never existed, then of course, case closed....

But somehow, I doubt this is your position. Call it a hunch.... Thus, I'm granting every conceivable 'given', right off the top... (i.e.) A singular god exists. All that's left is to provide evidence/reason for the one which demonstrates justification in belief. Are you ever planning on doing this?

I'm getting increasingly frustrated

Quite frankly, so am I. We are almost 400 posts deep, and no one is attempting to offer reason why their god is THE god. Instead, we are addressing 'side issues', left and right. If you are going to make a case for Jesus, as the one true and correct God, please start making it. If not, these 'side issues' are of little relevance to this thread... And are growing tiresome....

Whether you like it or not, Paul (the author), asserts that Christ has risen. You, yourself, state that you cannot prove this. I'm going to also go out on a limb, and assume you cannot prove the incarnation either.

Well, did you wish to throw your hat in the ring, and demonstrate to the non-believers, that YHWH is THE God? If not, then, with all due respect, we can be done here, in this thread.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And like I said, many times now, what difference does this make?

The OT, NT, Qur'an, other, being corroborated, in regards to the claims of the existence of historical figures, places, and physical events in history, lend no further credibility to the claims of the 'divine', 'supernatural', other.

Again, sure, if the NT historicity is [low], in regards to objective findings, or we come to find out Jesus never existed, then of course, case closed....

But somehow, I doubt this is your position. Call it a hunch.... Thus, I'm granting every conceivable 'given', right off the top... (i.e.) A singular god exists. All that's left is to provide evidence/reason for the one which demonstrates justification in belief. Are you ever planning on doing this?



Quite frankly, so am I. We are almost 400 posts deep, and no one is attempting to offer reason why their god is THE god. Instead, we are addressing 'side issues', left and right. If you are going to make a case for Jesus, as the one true and correct God, please start making it. If not, these 'side issues' are of little relevance to this thread... And are growing tiresome....

Whether you like it or not, Paul (the author), asserts that Christ has risen. You, yourself, state that you cannot prove this. I'm going to also go out on a limb, and assume you cannot prove the incarnation either.

Well, did you wish to throw your hat in the ring, and demonstrate to the non-believers, that YHWH is THE God? If not, then, with all due respect, we can be done here, in this thread.

It's quite funny, really. They know that believing in something for no reason is silly. They know they don't have evidence for their God. They know the only real argument they can use is the faith of personal experience. They've been willing to hint at it plenty of times throughout this thread.

But they just can't bring themselves to say it.

The true thing they need to say is: "There really is no evidence for the Christian God's existence. We just believe because we feel that it's right to. Lacking a personal encounter, the only rational course of action is to be a nonbeliever."

But they just can't bring themselves to say it. So we've had this comedy of a thread with Christians doing absolutely anything and everything except answering the question.

We may get more responses. There may be accusations. There may be bluster. There may be insinuations. But the one thing there will not be is a straightforward answer. That would just be too much for them to handle.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's quite funny, really. They know that believing in something for no reason is silly. They know they don't have evidence for their God. They know the only real argument they can use is the faith of personal experience. They've been willing to hint at it plenty of times throughout this thread.

But they just can't bring themselves to say it.

The true thing they need to say is: "There really is no evidence for the Christian God's existence. We just believe because we feel that it's right to. Lacking a personal encounter, the only rational course of action is to be a nonbeliever."

But they just can't bring themselves to say it. So we've had this comedy of a thread with Christians doing absolutely anything and everything except answering the question.

We may get more responses. There may be accusations. There may be bluster. There may be insinuations. But the one thing There will not be is a straightforward answer. That would just be too much for them to handle.

Admitting you may not have a good reason is far better than believing for bad reasons that can be demonstrated by critical thought. And I can imagine there are Christians that could articulate such a notion, by existential leap of faith or such things, but in terms of argumentation, I've rarely if ever, heard a line of thought that doesn't rely on some form of fallacy, most often special pleading or the like.

When Christians try to have it both ways and make faith a virtue, but also encourage the use of reason, it creates a dissonance that rarely seems to have a good resolution beyond either compartmentalization or admitting that faith is in essence a bad reason masquerading as a good one based on orthodox consensus that it is pleasing to a deity's standards (and thus is little different than legalism except in the execution of one principle rather than the rules Christians can claim are representative of any other religion in contrast to theirs).

 

[InterestedAtheist]

When Christians try to have it both ways and make faith a virtue, but also encourage the use of reason, it creates a dissonance that rarely seems to have a good resolution beyond either compartmentalization or admitting that faith is in essence a bad reason masquerading as a good one based on orthodox consensus that it is pleasing to a deity's standards

Exactly. In some ways it parallels Creationism. Their core belief is that the Bible is the literal truth and must be believed without question, but they are desperate for scientific approval, and so make up all of these specious arguments, use scientific vocabulary, and love it when someone with an actual degree in science supports them.

 

[muichimotsu]

Exactly. In some ways it parallels Creationism. Their core belief is that the Bible is the literal truth and must be believed without question, but they are desperate for scientific approval, and so make up all of these specious arguments, use scientific vocabulary, and love it when someone with an actual degree in science supports them.

From what little I understand, it seems to encourage a Dunning Kruger effect in a big way

 

[A_Thinker]

Which means I have conceded all arguments for God(s) general existence. Now all theists have left to do, presumably, is to demonstrate the Bible specifically.

Shouldn't be very hard...? We have just eliminated many many many formal arguments, in advance.

Thank you kindly, as always.

I would focus upon the teachings and character of Jesus ... as illustrated in Matthew, for a start.

Jesus is, at a minimum, ... on the level of a Ghandi ... or Mandela.

Determine whether He could be a guiding principle for you. It all turns upon Jesus. Do the work to discover whether or not you can trust His words ...

 

[MrsFoundit]

Why?

What is Philosophy? The Basics of Philosophy

Philosophy: A brief guide for undergraduates - The American Philosophical Association

Where’s The Evidence? | Issue 78 | Philosophy Now

Because.

Christianity - God as Creator, Sustainer, and Judge

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I would focus upon the teachings and character of Jesus ... as illustrated in Matthew, for a start.

Jesus is, at a minimum, ... on the level of a Ghandi ... or Mandela.

Determine whether He could be a guiding principle for you. It all turns upon Jesus. Do the work to discover whether or not you can trust His words ...

Here's the problem.
There are many, many, many religions. How to know which is the right one?
Seriously. Put yourself in our shoes. Approach the question from a neutral standpoint. All of the religions might say "study our faith, and you will come to see that it is true."
We don't have time for this. A hundred lifetimes would not be time for it.
This leaves us in a hopeless position. Why should we spend twenty or fifty years of our lives studying Christianity as opposed to any other god?

This is the point of this thread. What evidence do you have that the Christian God is real?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Why?

What is Philosophy? The Basics of Philosophy

Philosophy: A brief guide for undergraduates - The American Philosophical Association

Where’s The Evidence? | Issue 78 | Philosophy Now

Because.

Christianity - God as Creator, Sustainer, and Judge

Where’s The Evidence? | Issue 78 | Philosophy Now seems to be nothing more than a collection of anti-atheist tropes. It reads as if Dr. Antony lost one too many online debates to atheists.

If you would like to single out any particular argument he makes, I will be happy to explain its flaws.

Also, congratulations on making it to the twentieth page without providing any evidence at all for your God. Saying that it's atheists who should have to disprove God is a novel approach but, as you have been reminded many times, for the purposes of this thread the existence of a god is not in doubt; we're asking for proof of the existence of the Christian God.

 

[A_Thinker]

Here's the problem.
There are many, many, many religions. How to know which is the right one?
Seriously. Put yourself in our shoes. Approach the question from a neutral standpoint. All of the religions might say "study our faith, and you will come to see that it is true."
We don't have time for this. A hundred lifetimes would not be time for it.
This leaves us in a hopeless position. Why should we spend twenty or fifty years of our lives studying Christianity as opposed to any other god?

This is the point of this thread. What evidence do you have that the Christian God is real?

My suggestion was to read the bible book of Matthew.

You can do that in a day ...

 

[MrsFoundit]

Determine whether He could be a guiding principle for you. It all turns upon Jesus. Do the work to discover whether or not you can trust His words ...

Yes, "trust", as a verb, a state of being, means the same as "faith" in a Christian world view.

As opposed to belief without justification, which is what some people believe is meant by "trust" in Christianity. Strangely, that is itself a belief without justification.

 

[A_Thinker]

Other claims to other God's also preach love, and claim to feel love from their 'god(s)'.

This is, actually, untrue.

Christianity, rather uniquely, posits LOVE as the desired universal constant ...

"And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

— Matthew 22:35-40

1 Corinthians 13

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
...

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, "trust", as a verb, a state of being, means the same as "faith" in a Christian world view.

As opposed to belief without justification, which is what some people believe is meant by "trust" in Christianity. Strangely, that is itself a belief without justification.

You can believe you have a justification for your God belief, but that's insufficient even if you can appeal to numbers otherwise that would agree, because clearly that's not an indication of truth (you've admitted as much).

Defend the justification itself, not just that you are convinced you have that justification and it should be sufficient for others in any sense. Or if not claiming that it is sufficient for others, be honest and admit that the basis is not only subjective, but flimsy, because it seems like virtually any defense boils down to sentiment and not any reason that tempers it, only rationalizes the sentiment

 

[muichimotsu]

This is, actually, untrue.

Christianity, rather uniquely, posits LOVE as the desired universal constant ...

"And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

— Matthew 22:35-40

1 Corinthians 13

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
...

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

You realize that's circular logic, right? Appealing to your book to defend a claim that the book is unique; or at the very least, it's a hasty generalization based on not even looking into parallels scholars have found in regards to the religions having shared ideas, comparative religion likely still a source of much discussion

Claiming something is unique by appealing to quotes within the book and not contrasting it to parallels that you argue are not the same is stacking the deck

 

[muichimotsu]

My suggestion was to read the bible book of Matthew.

You can do that in a day ...

One could read all the gospels and it's no guarantee their perspective would be changed. I could do a study with just my texts from college, among some other stuff I have, such as a Gospel parallel reference and Jesus and Buddha's parallel sayings. And let's not forget Thomas Jefferson's bible, where he cut out everything supernatural and effectively irrational in his Deist viewpoint about the supposed Son of God and left that which is more demonstrable in itself by argument.

I can start with that, among other sources, like Living Buddha, Living Christ, which I want to reread sometime, provides a surprisingly generous parallel and common ground for Buddhism and Christianity, much as I've heard many try to make them polar opposites, practically

 

[InterestedAtheist]

My suggestion was to read the bible book of Matthew.

You can do that in a day ...

I've read it before, thank you.
And @cvanwey spent decades as a sincere Christian, for that matter.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

This is, actually, untrue.

No, it's not.
It's of no significance to say that Christianity has a unique point of view on love. Every religion is unique.
@cvanwey is quite right to say that many other religions preach and feel their god's or gods' love.

 

[A_Thinker]

You realize that's circular logic, right? Appealing to your book to defend a claim that the book is unique; or at the very least, it's a hasty generalization based on not even looking into parallels scholars have found in regards to the religions having shared ideas, comparative religion likely still a source of much discussion

Claiming something is unique by appealing to quotes within the book and not contrasting it to parallels that you argue are not the same is stacking the deck

My claim would be easy to dispute ... by presenting counter examples.

Enlighten me ...

 

[A_Thinker]

One could read all the gospels and it's no guarantee their perspective would be changed.

There are no guarantees ... when it comes to the variances between people.

I can start with that, among other sources, like Living Buddha, Living Christ, which I want to reread sometime, provides a surprisingly generous parallel and common ground for Buddhism and Christianity, much as I've heard many try to make them polar opposites, practically.

Forgive me, but my knowledge of Buddhism is fairly superficial, ... but isn't the goal of Buddhism to avoid suffering ?

If so, how does one make a parallel to the "suffering Christ" ?

 

[A_Thinker]

I've read it before, thank you.
And @cvanwey spent decades as a sincere Christian, for that matter.

To each ... their own ...