Argument for God's existence.

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Yes, but not knowingly. And as Jesus' brother and a skeptic while Jesus was alive, he would more than most know the real truth of whether Jesus rose from the dead. Notice how in the "Elvis is still alive believers", NONE are relatives of Elvis.

cv: As stated in another response, people can be falsely accused of something, and still be punished. We really don't know what his brother believed, or did not believe.
Actually we know much better what he believed than what most other historical figures of the same time period believed. We have both biblical from less than 30 years from his death and extrabiblical information about James written within less than 3 years of his brothers death. We have much better documentary evidence for James beliefs than we do for people mentioned by Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Demosthenes, Caesar, and many other ancient historians.

cv: But the history could still state that one is killed for a belief, when maybe they never truly held or felt in reality. But even if he did, how would this validate the truth?
It would mean that he believed it was true to the point of being willing to die for it because they would not have killed him if he had recanted. It means it was not made up by him or the disciples and was not a dream or hallucination.

cv: Again, if martyrdom is the gauge for truth, then radical Muslim extremists are clearly the winners.
Martyrs don't consciously kill themselves, they are killed by others, Muslim radicals commit suicide while killing others that is not martyrdom that is suicidal murder. See above why James martyrdom is a strong gauge for truth.

Ed1wolf said:
Then you are one of the few atheists I have talked to where that is the case.

cv: Great. Now what?
Nothing just that you are a rare bird. Congratulations.

Ed1wolf said:
Name another major religion where the founder was killed and then rose from the dead and people believe they are communicating with that founder.

cv: Gonna have to 'rubber stamp' you here...

Argument from Ignorance: "The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

"Oh yea, can you think of a better explanation?"


But aside from this... the response is simple: Just because the story line might be unique, does nothing to validate it's truth.
Nevertheless, while it does not prove it is valid, it is one more piece of evidence that it is true. There is no other major religion where their leader has died that people still claim to be able to talk to them and get responses back from Him. This is evidence that He is still alive.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Actually we know much better what he believed than what most other historical figures of the same time period believed. We have both biblical from less than 30 years from his death and extrabiblical information about James written within less than 3 years of his brothers death. We have much better documentary evidence for James beliefs than we do for people mentioned by Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Demosthenes, Caesar, and many other ancient historians.

Following your logic, the earlier the claim is recorded, somehow makes the claim more legitimate...?

(Side note, not meant to distract, but to raise a point): I trust you may not believe in extra terrestrials? Even though many of these claims are fairly contemporary... Meaning, reported while the claimants are still alive, and can account for the report later, if asked. We also have reports of mass sightings.... Does any of this convince you, at all, for the the existence of aliens?

Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Demosthenes, Caesar are not 'verified' because of the time frame in which they were recorded.

And when you state "better documentary evidence for James", you are going to need to validate this claim, and not simply ASSERT it. ;)


Please stop using this tired old apologetic's tactic. It may work on the ones in which you attempt to 'snow', whom really haven't given these arguments a second thought; but I'm getting tired of still hearing it in this day and age...

It would mean that he believed it was true to the point of being willing to die for it because they would not have killed him if he had recanted. It means it was not made up by him or the disciples and was not a dream or hallucination.

I asked how it would validate the truth. Believing in something, does not make it 'true'. Again, many die for beliefs, which were never true. We are going in circles here.

Furthermore, how do we know he did not recant, or state he never believed; but was instead still accused and executed regardless? We don't.


Martyrs don't consciously kill themselves, they are killed by others, Muslim radicals commit suicide while killing others that is not martyrdom that is suicidal murder. See above why James martyrdom is a strong gauge for truth.

Abu Ghraib, shahid, Malcolm X, etc.........

Nevertheless, while it does not prove it is valid, it is one more piece of evidence that it is true.

Non sequitur

There is no other major religion where their leader has died that people still claim to be able to talk to them and get responses back from Him. This is evidence that He is still alive.

What?.?.?
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
cv; "God" inspired it... It was God guided for correction and accuracy, as stated from the NT. It would not matter who was the writer - (ghost writer, direct witness, family, other)... God would not allow an incorrect story to ultimately be published, would He?

Yes, but I am talking about from a purely secular historical perspective. Even if the it was a document that was not considered the word of God by believers, it would still be considered more accurate than documents written by total strangers.

cv: But we know it was the "church" whom published the approved later writings of the Biblical canon. Which demonstrates a bias. Not a third party source. So I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make...?
See above. You just committed the genetic fallacy. The church didn't "publish" them. The ordinary followers who knew Jesus personally recognized their accuracy and then the Church leaders later made it official after careful analysis for accuracy.

cv; The Josephus passage was edited by later Christian scribes. They edited it to taste. Most scholars agree. A link was provided in the prior post. You have been proven incorrect.
No, you claimed the entire passage was made up. Again, I never denied the parts not in the Arabic version was added later by Christians, but the gist confirms the gist of the gospels.


cv; Disagree. Outside the bias filled already Christian believing authors, decades/centuries later, there exists little to no third party accounts of such events which appear credible.
Again you have committed the genetic fallacy. They would not have become believers if they were not convinced that these amazing events occurred and worth writing about. You think just because some one believes something if they write about it then it is automatically suspect, that makes no sense. There are multiple third party accounts that are very credible. The ancient creed about His resurrection in I Corinthians 13 has been dated by non Christian scholars to less than 3 yeas after His resurrection and is extrabiblical since it was composed PRIOR to the NT.

cv: And when you use Josephus, as one of your (key note) pieces of evidence to try and refute my claim, it is immediately exposed as to how your argument looses credibility. Again, Christian scribes later edited Josephus writings to taste. Please finally reconcile this conclusion.
See above how the editing did not affect the gist and did not affect the section about James at all where no editing occurred and which is the section that is evidence for the resurrection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Yes, but I am talking about from a purely secular historical perspective. Even if the it was a document that was not considered the word of God by believers, it would still be considered more accurate than documents written by total strangers.


How so? There would be no bias, just the facts, as they were given. And again, the NT speaks about Scripture being God given. So again, it would not matter regardless.

See above. You just committed the genetic fallacy. The church didn't "publish" them. The ordinary followers who knew Jesus personally recognized their accuracy and then the Church leaders later made it official after careful analysis for accuracy.

I know you want and wish for this extra-biblical 'evidence' to be more credible. But as demonstrated, the imperative passages are what have been proven to be a complete forgery.

If you look at the passage, and what appeared later, demonstrates evidence as to why it was touched by Christian scribes.

Thus, I can confidently restate, without committing such a 'fallacy', Christian scribes added verses (i.e.) forged them to 'prove' a resurrection.

Thanx

No, you claimed the entire passage was made up. Again, I never denied the parts not in the Arabic version was added later by Christians, but the gist confirms the gist of the gospels.

Any parts attempting to report a 'resurrection' was made up in this document --- by Christian scribes. Yes.

Again you have committed the genetic fallacy. They would not have become believers if they were not convinced that these amazing events occurred and worth writing about. You think just because some one believes something if they write about it then it is automatically suspect, that makes no sense. There are multiple third party accounts that are very credible. The ancient creed about His resurrection in I Corinthians 13 has been dated by non Christian scholars to less than 3 yeas after His resurrection and is extrabiblical since it was composed PRIOR to the NT.

As soon as you demonstrate how the parts, written about a resurrection, were instead written by Josephus, is when you can start accusing me of a generic fallacy. But in the mean time, I can qualify your response as inaccurate, misguided, and/or dishonest.

Everything mentioned there-after is from the Bible itself. Which again, was constructed by the church members whom already believed. - Bias....

And again, the more contemporary a report or claim often times has little bearing on it's validity.

See above how the editing did not affect the gist and did not affect the section about James at all where no editing occurred and which is the section that is evidence for the resurrection.

Yes it did. I already placed, in bold, the parts which were discovered to be later additions -- by Christian scribes. Changes the 'gist' entirely...
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
No one ‘refuses to believe’. Belief isn’t a choice. You’re either convinced, or you’re not.

And if there is a Yahweh ‘revealing’ evidence to me, all he’s ever done is send apologists armed with some of the crappiest, flimsiest arguments ever devised by humankind, which fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. So he’s either abysmally incompetent, or he really must not want me to believe.

I’m astounded you think it’s a good idea to still keep this thread alive.
The evidence from science, history, and philosophy are pretty close to overwhelming plus humans intuitively know He exists, so it is "refuses to believe" but over time people suppress that intuitive knowledge so it feels to them that they are not convinced. So far no one on this thread has refuted my "crappy arguments".
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The evidence from science, history, and philosophy are pretty close to overwhelming plus humans intuitively know He exists, so it is "refuses to believe" but over time people suppress that intuitive knowledge so it feels to them that they are not convinced. So far no one on this thread has refuted my "crappy arguments".

I believe you believe that.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
We’ve been through this. Things don’t only evolve chemical by chemical, so pointing out that lopping off one chemical renders the structure useless is meaningless.
It depends on the chemical. Some chemicals are absolutely necessary for sight. And also you DO know that genes are made up of chemicals right? Genetic entropy stops evolution in its tracks.

ga: Yes, evolution is a fundamental principle of biology. Francis Crick was a pioneer in the study of DNA, so it’s natural that he would remark about being largely in the dark with little guidance from evolution. But that doesn’t change the fact that evolution is a unifying theory of biology.
Huh? DNA and genes are supposedly the blueprint for evolution. Read the Selfish Gene by Dawkins.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It depends on the chemical. Some chemicals are absolutely necessary for sight. And also you DO know that genes are made up of chemicals right? Genetic entropy stops evolution in its tracks.


Huh? DNA and genes are supposedly the blueprint for evolution. Read the Selfish Gene by Dawkins.
Oh, you’re familiar with the work of Richard Dawkins? Then how did you miss this video of his which addresses your misguided objections at length?


At whatever rate genetic entropy occurs, it does not occur at a rate sufficient to “stop evolution in its tracks.” Please stop spreading misinformation.

Crick was concerned with figuring out the structure and function of DNA. Turning to his contemporary understanding of natural selection really wouldn’t offer much guidance in that regard. It would be like trying to figure out how a combustion engine works by turning to a driver’s ed manual.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
If this is your existence, then I’m truly sorry for you.
No, that is YOUR existence if there is no God. But since we know all these things DO exist, then that is strong evidence that there IS a God.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
You've apparently read post #2169 incorrectly. Below are bullet points to answer all of your concerns:

1. I stated, 'all kidding aside.'
2. This thread is to argue for the existence of God, not men claiming to be God. We have plenty of that all over the place. I've never denied the existence of a man named Jesus, whom claimed He was a Messiah, preached, and died.


For me this thread is arguing for the existence of the Christian God only. So if Christ is who He claimed to be then that is strong evidence that the Christian God exists.

cv: 3. You NOW appear extremely hung up on scholarly sources about Josephus, but somehow, when presented from evolutionary biology and big bang cosmology, maybe not so much?

No, I presented a great number of scholarly sources against evolution and in favor of the consensus view on the BB.

cv; 4. What was written by Josephus, prior to CHRISTIAN scribes getting a hold of it, whom then attempt to 'prove' something altogether different? (See point #7)

No, even if you eliminate the insertions made by Christians it still covers the gist of Jesus' life except for His resurrection and divinity. But they are both strongly alluded to in the text about His brother James where NO Christian insertions have been made.

cv: 5. You may want to re-evaluate what (you) consider 'minor details/additions'. There exists a huge difference between a man claiming he was a Messiah, and what Christians later added to the text.
No, see above.

cv: 6. Again, if martyrdom was all it took to demonstrate the veracity of a claim, then Muslim extremists take the cake.

As I stated before, Muslim extremists generally dont make any historical claim when they martyr themselves, their goal is to kill infidels alone. Christian martyrs ARE making a historical claim and actually dying for that specific claim.

cv: 7. The 'resurrection' claim is the argument for God. And as such, the original Josephus publications then don't really count.
Fraid so, see about the James passage above. No Christian insertions at all. But it implicitly points to the divinity and resurrection of Christ.

8. Again, outside the bias filled Bible itself, there exists little to no evidence for a resurrection claim.

First you have to prove it is biased. What is your evidence the bible is biased? Second I have provided two very strong lines of evidence for the resurrection. The James passage in Josephus and the ancient pre NT creed from 36 AD.

cv: 9. Again, the fact that 'Josephus' was one of your first go-to pieces of 'evidence for a resurrection claim, is quite telling indeed.
Again, nothing you have said has refuted the evidence from the James passage.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
So if Christ is who He claimed to be then that is strong evidence that the Christian God exists.

Um, that already goes without saying...

No, I presented a great number of scholarly sources against evolution and in favor of the consensus view on the BB.

My point was to relay the 'fact' that the vast majority of scholarly biologists accept evolution by natural selection, in it's entirety. Thus, I'm not sure why you would even be concerned with scholarly consensus at all? As it does not seem to matter in biology, any ways. I've also provided many links and videos suggestive of the BB, which differ from your 'interpretation'. Hence, again, not quite sure how scholarly findings are of such importance in this specific case? But regardless, scholars conclude anything pertaining to the claims of a 'resurrection', was later added by Christian scribes. The resurrection is the only part which would claim of His divinity. Again..., living, preaching, and dying don't.

No, even if you eliminate the insertions made by Christians it still covers the gist of Jesus' life except for His resurrection and divinity. But they are both strongly alluded to in the text about His brother James where NO Christian insertions have been made.

Haha. This is my point. If you eliminate the part about the 'resurrection', it is just another man, in history, whom made claims, then died. The 'resurrection' would be the only piece which matters.

As I stated before, Muslim extremists generally dont make any historical claim when they martyr themselves, their goal is to kill infidels alone. Christian martyrs ARE making a historical claim and actually dying for that specific claim.

As provided in a later post, in which you have yet to address... Abu Ghraib, shahid, Malcolm X, etc.........

Fraid so, see about the James passage above. No Christian insertions at all. But it implicitly points to the divinity and resurrection of Christ.

Now we are just going in circles.

First you have to prove it is biased. What is your evidence the bible is biased? Second I have provided two very strong lines of evidence for the resurrection. The James passage in Josephus and the ancient pre NT creed from 36 AD.

Because the people who wrote the content were already believers, right? The 'church' comprised of the canon, right?

And second, please see above.


Again, nothing you have said has refuted the evidence from the James passage.

Again, one of your first go-to pieces of extra-biblical evidence was 'Josephus.' We both agree Christian scribes added verses about the part which would claim His divinity, the 'resurrection.' Again, people mistakenly die for beliefs all the time. (i.e.) Abu Ghraib, shahid, Malcolm X, etc.........
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
At the end of the day, we don’t have anything Jesus wrote, or anything written about Jesus by eyewitnesses.
We dont have anything Jesus wrote, but we have strong evidence of eyewitness accounts composed with in three years of His resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Actually we know much better what he believed than what most other historical figures of the same time period believed. We have both biblical from less than 30 years from his death and extrabiblical information about James written within less than 3 years of his brothers death. We have much better documentary evidence for James beliefs than we do for people mentioned by Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Demosthenes, Caesar, and many other ancient historians.

cv: Following your logic, the earlier the claim is recorded, somehow makes the claim more legitimate...?
Yes, while not the only criteria that strengthens accuracy and authenticity, it is the primary criteria for how authentic or historically accurate a historical document is especially if it comes from sources that are within the same basic geographical area thereby providing access and evidence that the author also has had some contact with the subject matter. Which document would you consider to be more accurate to determine historical evidence about your life. A letter to you from a friend written when you were 30 years old or some stranger writing about you 500 years after your death?

cv: (Side note, not meant to distract, but to raise a point): I trust you may not believe in extra terrestrials? Even though many of these claims are fairly contemporary... Meaning, reported while the claimants are still alive, and can account for the report later, if asked. We also have reports of mass sightings.... Does any of this convince you, at all, for the the existence of aliens?

I believe that some of them had a real experiences that they honestly believe were aliens. But there is a big difference between aliens which have never been empirically identified as existing and a human being (which we know exist) that had family and friends that wrote about Him.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,975.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
But no, I don't think Thomas is dogmatic. I mean, except by virtue of accepting certain dogmas, but that's a different sort of dogmatism. I do think that Feser is a dogmatic Thomist, though.

Actually, that's probably not fair. There's a lot of analytic influences in there too, but Thomists going after the Ontological Argument is almost comically stereotypical. :sorry:

I enjoyed this article and found it to be on topic, for those who are interested: The Advertiser and the Witness - Public Discourse
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Yes, while not the only criteria that strengthens accuracy and authenticity, it is the primary criteria for how authentic or historically accurate a historical document is especially if it comes from sources that are within the same basic geographical area thereby providing access and evidence that the author also has had some contact with the subject matter. Which document would you consider to be more accurate to determine historical evidence about your life. A letter to you from a friend written when you were 30 years old or some stranger writing about you 500 years after your death?

Depends on the claims. What's more likely? Yesterday, 10 people witnessed so-and-so raise someone from the grave. Or, 5 years later, 1 person reports so-and-so was assassinated. Which one is more likely 'true', without further inquiry? The more extra-ordinary the claim, the more extra-ordinary the evidence required.

In regards to the Bible, the 'evidence' does not appear to match the claim. Bias reports from an ancient book, reporting 'miracles', most certainly would not suffice. And having no external eyewitness attestation, to boot, certainly does not help matters very much.


I believe that some of them had a real experiences that they honestly believe were aliens. But there is a big difference between aliens which have never been empirically identified as existing and a human being (which we know exist) that had family and friends that wrote about Him.

I've spoke to dozens, if not hundreds of people in my life time, whom claim to have seen or spoke to their post mortem relatives. Many of whom are not Christian. Again, the more extra-ordinary the claim, the more extra-ordinary the evidence required.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single

Even if you were correct, which you most likely cannot prove regardless, if dying for a believe was the measure to a truth, than Muslims would be the clear winners. Thus, this entire line of yours, this argumentation, fails before it even is brought forth :)

In what way? I am not saying that Muslim terrorists do not strongly believe in their religion, but there is a significant difference in freely choosing to kill yourself and planning for it for a significant time period in what they consider a war so your family will consider you a war hero and having someone else kill you AGAINST your will just because you believe something. And knowing that you can easily get out of being killed by recanting. I believe the second case takes greater courage and faith in your beliefs.


cv: Yes they are sir. You are incorrect. They believe Muhammad command(s) these acts. Muhammad is apparently a historical figure, and his commands are considered historical events, from their claimed true historical book of truth. Thus, again, dying for belief has no gauge or apparent merit in reality, does it?
No, dying for a belief does have a gauge on reality. But see my comment above on the significant difference between the two.



cv: You appear to be severely watering down your account/position of 'altered'. Below are the contested parts, which appear to have suddenly arrived (later) in bold. Meaning, not by Josephus's hands. Meaning, forgery...
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

(Translation from Loeb Classical Library, italics mine)

My point was that even with the altered sections taken out, Josephus' account confirms much of the gospel accounts. They just give the answers why to events Josephus records. Why He was considered a wise man, why he performed surprising deeds and what they were, what He was winning over the jews and greeks to, And why the tribe of Christians had not disappeared unto his day. My argument on this section was not evidence of the resurrection but rather that the general accuracy of the NT is confirmed by extrabiblcal sources.


cv: When I stated, 'all kidding aside', what part did you not get? I don't buy his Jesus myth position either. Please cool your jets...
Biblical scholars exist, whom believe the entire Bible to be a work of fiction. What does being considered a mainstream scholar have to do with anything????

It has to do with the same thing regarding evidence for evolution and global warming. The doubters of these two things are always told mainstream science agrees that two things have occurred and are occurring. Richard Carrier is the equivalent of a global warming denier.

cv: The fact of the matter, is we have altered script for Josephus.... The parts which are altered, are the direct parts attempting to 'validate' a resurrection. And coincidence prevails, that it was Christian scribes whom touched these documents ;) And now, you are using it as a 'key' element to support a resurrection claim...?

As demonstrated above, your cited source, for extra-biblical 'evidence of a resurrection, has been demonstrated to be a forgery. (i.e.) The parts which attempt to validate a resurrection -- which is the entire premise of this thread..

And now you can stop using this one.
You have totally missed my point on this. When we started you just assumed I was referring to the passage above to provide evidence for the resurrection when actually I was initially referring to the passage about his brother James in Josephus which was not altered at all as evidence of the resurrection. James who initially was a skeptic like you, came to the point were he died for his belief in the resurrection. The James story is the extrabiblical evidence for the resurrection NOT the more famous passage you are referring to.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
How so? There would be no bias, just the facts, as they were given. And again, the NT speaks about Scripture being God given. So again, it would not matter regardless.


Uhh do you even know what genetic fallacy means? Just because someone believes what they are writing about is true does not automatically mean it is false. How else do they let others that come after them know about what they experienced and saw? At least two of the writers of the NT were NOT believers until they saw the resurrected Christ. That is what made them believers. And one of their deaths for believing the resurrection was recorded in a reliable extrabiblical source.


cv: I know you want and wish for this extra-biblical 'evidence' to be more credible. But as demonstrated, the imperative passages are what have been proven to be a complete forgery.
No, in this part we were talking about the NT, there is no evidence in the NT that any significant passages were added later.


cv: If you look at the passage, and what appeared later, demonstrates evidence as to why it was touched by Christian scribes.
I have not denied that about the famous passage from Josephus thought it does confirm that the gist of the NT was accurate.


cv: Thus, I can confidently restate, without committing such a 'fallacy', Christian scribes added verses (i.e.) forged them to 'prove' a resurrection.

Again, here we were talking about the NT. There is no evidence that verses about Christ's resurrection were added later.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
47
USA, IL
✟41,804.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that.

The problem with the watch in the sand argument is that it proves the opposite of what Christians need the argument to prove.

Tha argument goes like this. You are walking on a beach and see a watch. A watch is a complex machine that had to have been designed.

The problem is, according to the Christian view, is that the sand was also designed, but sand's designer was infinitely more complex than a designer for a watch. And yet, sand is just sand.

Second problem with the design argument, at least from my perspective, is that you can't tell whether there is a designer, and if there is one, how many of them worked on a given design. Lets say, for the sake of the argument, that I agree with you and there had to be a designer. How do you determine how many designers there were? Why should a pear tree require the same designer as an apple tree?
 
Upvote 0