• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Argument for God's existence.

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by gradyll, Apr 4, 2019.

  1. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +393
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    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. 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?

    Again, if martyrdom is the gauge for truth, then radical Muslim extremists are clearly the winners.


    Great. Now what?

    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.

    "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?

    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...?

    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.


    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. 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.
     
  2. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    You are partially correct, but I am referring to knowing He exists in all His glory and goodness, you could not resist repenting of your disbelief and believing fully in Him. I believe it would cause your immediate conversion and overcome your will, but it would not allow you to grow spiritually and therefore not allow the complete destruction of evil forever.

    No, because there is more than enough evidence for His existence to believe in Him by faith, so they are without faith by their own choice.

    I agree but see above that I meant more than just His mere existence. He is not playing hide and see with you, He has revealed a great deal of evidence of His existence and even much evidence of His goodness and glory, and yet you still refuse to believe.
     
  3. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    So you admit it is unguided.
     
  4. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +841
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    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.
     
  5. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Look up the phototransduction cascade of chemical reactions necessary for sight. If one chemical in this cascade is not present during the transition from simple to complex eyes then sight is not possible.


    No, evolution is not fundamental to biology Read this about Francis Crick, "Yet after urging that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved,” molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick remarked, “It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large role in guiding biological research, but that is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now.”
     
  6. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I am referring to extant copies of the documents. The oldest extant copy of the Gallic Wars is 900 years after the event. We have extant copies of NT documents less than 100 years after the events.
     
  7. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    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.

    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.
     
  8. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    In the “having an intended path” sense that you’re using the word, yes. It still follows a path that is set naturally, but there is no intent behind it.
     
  9. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +1,189
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    I found this tweet from Feser interesting:

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,502
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Gotta love that dogmatic Thomism. :) But I kind of feel like we're just playing an epic game of rocks-paper-scissors here.

    Aquinas beats Anselm.
    Kant beats Aquinas.
    Hegel beats Kant.

    (Where Hegel is just an updated Ontological Argument.)
     
  11. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +1,189
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    You found one of the most irenic things Feser has ever uttered to be dogmatic? :p

    Thomas isn't dogmatic, he's just honest. And there are Thomists and Thomists.
     
  12. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,502
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Irenic!? That is like a war cry! ^_^

    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:
     
  13. zippy2006

    zippy2006 Dragonsworn

    +1,189
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    For Feser, everything is a war cry. You need a good ear to hear the different timbres of bark. :)

    Good, I agree!

    Interestingly enough, he has been giving nods to Scotists of late.

    True. :D
     
  14. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Not if all we are is atoms, no mind, no free will, no real science, no real knowledge, no love, no morality, and no way of knowing if an objective reality really exists.
     
  15. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Richard Carrier, who BTW, I debated a little many years ago on Internet Infidels, is not mainstream, has a PhD in European Literature, not in any ancient Biblical languages or Biblical documents. Sorry, try again.


    No, you were claiming that the WHOLE section about Jesus was added. No mainstream scholar believes that as I stated earlier. I am not denying that there was some modifications to the passage. But the gist of it is real according to most scholars, and most agree that the Arabic version is probably closest to Josephus' original words. And then of course, the evidence for His resurrection is contained in the James passage which has not been disputed by anybody except a few hyperskeptic internet activists like Carrier.


    No, only minor modifications, the original combined with the James section confirms the basic gist of the NT description of Christ and confirms that he was fairly well known by non Christian jewish historians. And is independent evidence of His resurrection.
     
  16. HitchSlap

    HitchSlap Burn the torch!

    +5,000
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    If this is your existence, then I’m truly sorry for you.
     
  17. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +393
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    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.
    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?
    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)
    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.
    6. Again, if martyrdom was all it took to demonstrate the veracity of a claim, then Muslim extremists take the cake.
    7. The 'resurrection' claim is the argument for God. And as such, the original Josephus publications then don't really count.
    8. Again, outside the bias filled Bible itself, there exists little to no evidence for a resurrection claim.
    9. Again, the fact that 'Josephus' was one of your first go-to pieces of 'evidence for a resurrection claim, is quite telling indeed.
     
  18. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single


    No, generally, among the ancient jews and Romans, if you recanted you were allowed to live and James did not recant. Therefore, he most likely believed what he was dying for.

    No, Muslims are not dying for the veracity of a specific historical event, Muslim martyrs are soldiers for their faith, they are dying to kill the infidel.



    I agree the specific Jesus reference cited earlier has been altered but not totally rewritten. Most scholars believe that the gist WAS written by Josephus as well as the section on James his brother. And Josephus version most closely matches the Arabic version.


    No, see my previous post about Carrier, he is not mainstream and is not even a biblical scholar.


    Fraid not, see above.

    No, it is not pivotal. Josephus is just one of several extrabiblical validations of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. See above about the ancient creed written within 3 years of his death confirming His resurrection.
     
  19. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +393
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private


    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 :)



    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?




    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)

    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???? 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.
     
  20. HitchSlap

    HitchSlap Burn the torch!

    +5,000
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    At the end of the day, we don’t have anything Jesus wrote, or anything written about Jesus by eyewitnesses.
     
Loading...