Best Argument for Christian God?

[alien444]

HOW DO YOU ASSESS THE PROBABILITY OF A SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATION?

Science of course seeks not to prove but to establish possibility or plausibility by weight of evidence. The possibility of a supernatural event can be assessed scientifically when those claims involve an interaction with the natural world. For example, claims about creation have been proven implausible by evolution and claims that the Grand Canyon were caused by the Flood of Noah have been proven implausible by Geology. Most importantly, the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when there is a good reason to believe that evidence would be present if the claim is true. Christianity can't even offer evidence of Christ's existence as a real or divine person/entity so the issue of the Resurrection is actually irrelevant.


You aren't being asked to believe it at this point. You are being asked to explain it (ie how the community came to produce these texts).
That's easy for typical myths like Osiris.
It's not been done satisfactorily for Jesus.

I tried to answer your question about probability and the supernatural. PLEASE tell me how to disprove the resurrection myth of Osiris and how your methods are not effective for Jesus.




There were far too few ancient historians documenting what went on in outposts like jerusalem, far too few texts that were written that survived, etc, to expect anything.

But we are talking about perhaps the greatest event in human history. God returning to earth. There should be vast amounts of confirmed historical evidence-based on the volumes of local history that does survive relating mundane events in and around Jerusalem. Josephus and Tacitus were obviously not impressed by the events related by the Gospels. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews relates contemporary battles and political events in detail but no authentic record of the return of God to save humanity.




It's looking suspiciously like you do.

You got me. I will give you the last word then. Thanks for talking to me.

 

[ebia]

HOW DO YOU ASSESS THE PROBABILITY OF A SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATION?

Science of course seeks not to prove but to establish possibility or plausibility by weight of evidence. The possibility of a supernatural event can be assessed scientifically when those claims involve an interaction with the natural world. For example, claims about creation have been proven implausible by evolution and claims that the Grand Canyon were caused by the Flood of Noah have been proven implausible by Geology. Most importantly, the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when there is a good reason to believe that evidence would be present if the claim is true. Christianity can't even offer evidence of Christ's existence as a real or divine person/entity so the issue of the Resurrection is actually irrelevant.

Your smokescreen covering up avoidance of the question is noted.

You aren't being asked to believe it at this point. You are being asked to explain it (ie how the community came to produce these texts).
That's easy for typical myths like Osiris.
It's not been done satisfactorily for Jesus.

I tried to answer your question about probability and the supernatural. PLEASE tell me how to disprove the resurrection myth of Osiris and how your methods are not effective for Jesus.

The Osiris and Jesus stories are not like, and the texts conveying them are not like.
It's more smokescreen to avoid the challenge presented to you: a satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the early Christian texts and the community that produced them.

There were far too few ancient historians documenting what went on in outposts like jerusalem, far too few texts that were written that survived, etc, to expect anything.

But we are talking about perhaps the greatest event in human history. God returning to earth. There should be vast amounts of confirmed historical evidence-based on the volumes of local history that does survive relating mundane events in and around Jerusalem.

That shows enormous naivity about the level of documentation we have of the period. There is precious little contempory documentation on Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the known world at the time, let alone about what was going on at the time in Palestine.

Josephus and Tacitus were obviously not impressed by the events related by the Gospels. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews relates contemporary battles and political events in detail but no authentic record of the return of God to save humanity.

Josephus isn't an disinterested chronologer. He is writing noticably later - about the time the gospels are bring given their final form, and he is writing to serve his own agenda, same as anyone else. Early Christian claims don't fit that agenda.

It doesn't affect the conversation much, but it's interesting to note that we only have the texts of Josephus at all because the Christian church preserved and copied them, mostly because of the couple of tangential references to jesus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Many are familiar with traditional and contemporary arguments for the existence of God such as the ontological, teleological, and pre-suppositional arguments (etc.) However, assuming that any one of these arguments are true, what suggests that Christians have the correct understanding of God. Are there any logical arguments supporting the existence of the Christian God that do not appeal to personal experience or the bible (since most religions contain these as well)?

Logical arguments are not needed when sufficient information already exists.

 

[AionPhanes]

I want to apologize for posting and yet not offering a good argument. It's an important question that deserves a much better answer.

 

[Joshua260]

I disagree that their is an objective and absolute moral standard..

Although I disagree with your kind on most theological issues, I respect those of you like yourself who have the bravery to commit to your beliefs. After all, if there is no God, there can be no objective moral values or duties. About the only thing you can do is argue for is a morality based on survival of the fittest. Of course, one could then argue that some cultures (those that are the fittest) should survive while we should let others perish, which is what Darwin taught and what Hitler tried to implement. Not that our dislike of what Hitler did proves theism, but I'm sure you realize that it's a sad possible consequence of naturalism. On that view, there's just no objective justification to call one action right and another wrong; at best, it boils down to what's convenient.

If that was the case the right or wrong choice in all situations would be obvious.

But this is where I find a curious gap in your thinking. You seem to have some scientific background, so I'm wondering why you would ignore the obvious possibility that some people, let's say a pedophile for example, could purposefully deceive himself into thinking that "raping little girls may not be that bad after all"? This seems to be an irrational departure from an unbiased scientific investigation, seeing that self-deception (a human reaction employed when faced with undesirable realities) is recognized by psychologists, and looks suspiciously like a move made to justify what atheists want to believe.

 

[alien444]

Logical arguments are not needed when sufficient information already exists.

If sufficient information (evidence?) existed for the existence of the Abrahamic God then logical arguments supporting that information would exist as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If sufficient information (evidence?) existed for the existence of the Abrahamic God then logical arguments supporting that information would exist as well.

Analytically, information and evidence are two different things, Alien444. One may entail the other, but the scope and specifics of each are not necessarily synonymous.

As far as logic is concerned, sufficiency of information about God does not imply that a comprehensive, systematic level of data is also present upon which to make and assess various deductions that we might want to consider. In other words, we will not be able to reach clarification on all the points about God we'd like to be certain of; but we will still have sufficient information to make a decision that will direct the conduct of our lives.

 

[alien444]

Although I disagree with your kind on most theological issues, I respect those of you like yourself who have the bravery to commit to your beliefs. After all, if there is no God, there can be no objective moral values or duties. About the only thing you can do is argue for is a morality based on survival of the fittest. Of course, one could then argue that some cultures (those that are the fittest) should survive while we should let others perish, which is what Darwin taught and what Hitler tried to implement.

Darwin never taught that some species should survive over others any more than Einstein taught that the speed of light should be the cosmic speed limit. That is just the way it is. However, to suggest that we should apply natural selection to humanity is call the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural doesn't mean that is good or beneficial. Sunlight is natural but we take precautions not to be overexposed to it. Applying an idea like survival of the fittest to humanity is a horrible idea even though it occurs naturally in the natural world.

Not that our dislike of what Hitler did proves theism, but I'm sure you realize that it's a sad possible consequence of naturalism.

You're right. Even if Hitler was an thiest it does not support theism. However, Hitler was not an athiest or naturalist-he was a Christian who had some very bizarre supernatural beliefs.

On that view, there's just no objective justification to call one action right and another wrong; at best, it boils down to what's convenient.

Even if the existence God is the only justification for morality (which I strongly disagree with) that does not suggest that the Christian God is the moral law giver.





But this is where I find a curious gap in your thinking. You seem to have some scientific background, so I'm wondering why you would ignore the obvious possibility that some people, let's say a pedophile for example, could purposefully deceive himself into thinking that "raping little girls may not be that bad after all"? This seems to be an irrational departure from an unbiased scientific investigation, seeing that self-deception (a human reaction employed when faced with undesirable realities) is recognized by psychologists, and looks suspiciously like a move made to justify what atheists want to believe.

You may have to clarify for me a bit. All atheism is is an examination of existing evidence for and against the existence of God and a conclusion that belief in God is not reasonable based on the evidence presented. No more no less.

 

[alien444]

Analytically, information and evidence are two different things, Alien444. One may entail the other, but the scope and specifics of each are not necessarily synonymous.

I can agree with that. Information is not necessarily evidence. I guess what I am curious about is that if we presuppose the existence in God is there a logical reason to believe in the Abrahamic God as the God? Furthermore, if there is no logical reason why doesn't one exist? I am not trying to lead someone into an argument that I already have prepared, I am just interested in how believers may answer this question.

As far as logic is concerned, sufficiency of information about God does not imply that a comprehensive, systematic level of data is also present upon which to make and assess various deductions that we might want to consider.

So there is sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of the Christian God but not enough to form a logical argument?

In other words, we will not be able to reach clarification on all the points about God we'd like to be certain of; but we will still have sufficient information to make a decision that will direct the conduct of our lives.

I don't think you need clarification about all point of God in order to believe but I do think you need to establish existence of said God. What kind of sufficient information are we talking about? It sounds like you are not only presupposing the existence of a God you are also presupposing the existence of the Christian God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can agree with that. Information is not necessarily evidence. I guess what I am curious about is that if we presuppose the existence in God is there a logical reason to believe in the Abrahamic God as the God? Furthermore, if there is no logical reason why doesn't one exist? I am not trying to lead someone into an argument that I already have prepared, I am just interested in how believers may answer this question.

That's perfectly fine, Alien444, and I appreciate that you are wanting to discuss these things.

There could be 'logical' reasons, but that is such a diverse concept. Are we talking about formal logic or informal logic? Are we appealing to Deduction, or Induction, or even Abduction? Will we need to utilize syllogisms, or focus on coherency of propositions, or predicates, and/or modalities.

Of course, we could attempt to utilize some of the kinds of logic mentioned above, but the problem is that by doing so, not only will we most likely come up short in discovering human conclusions about religion, we would also be attempting to surmount an epistemological barrier that Christ and His Apostles indicated exists between humanity and the Divine (which is why, in the case of Christianity, we should predict that human logic should fail if used as a measure and/or means of clarification regarding the Divine.) ...Thus, we are left with ancient, but sufficient, information by which to live and worship. In sum, with the epistemological limitations left in place, it seems God has presented to humanity (or each individual) a 'kind' of Rorschach Test where each of us will likely 'see' and 'respond' in different ways. Our visions could even change about what we 'think' we are seeing over time. And that is where we are.

 

[alien444]

That's perfectly fine, Alien444, and I appreciate that you are wanting to discuss these things.

There could be 'logical' reasons, but that is such a diverse concept. Are we talking about formal logic or informal logic? Are we appealing to Deduction, or Induction, or even Abduction? Will we need to utilize syllogisms, or focus on coherency of propositions, or predicates, and/or modalities.

Of course, we could attempt to utilize some of the kinds of logic mentioned above, but the problem is that by doing so, not only will we most likely come up short in discovering human conclusions about religion, we would also be attempting to surmount an epistemological barrier that Christ and His Apostles indicated exists between humanity and the Divine (which is why, in the case of Christianity, we should predict that human logic should fail if used as a measure and/or means of clarification regarding the Divine.) ...Thus, we are left with ancient, but sufficient, information by which to live and worship. In sum, with the epistemological limitations left in place, it seems God has presented to humanity (or each individual) a 'kind' of Rorschach Test where each of us will likely 'see' and 'respond' in different ways. Our visions could even change about what we 'think' we are seeing over time. And that is where we are.

Thanks for the response. I was hoping for more than faith and personal experience but I will think about this and try to post tomorrow.

 

[alien444]

That's perfectly fine, Alien444, and I appreciate that you are wanting to discuss these things.

There could be 'logical' reasons, but that is such a diverse concept. Are we talking about formal logic or informal logic? Are we appealing to Deduction, or Induction, or even Abduction? Will we need to utilize syllogisms, or focus on coherency of propositions, or predicates, and/or modalities.

Of course, we could attempt to utilize some of the kinds of logic mentioned above, but the problem is that by doing so, not only will we most likely come up short in discovering human conclusions about religion, we would also be attempting to surmount an epistemological barrier that Christ and His Apostles indicated exists between humanity and the Divine (which is why, in the case of Christianity, we should predict that human logic should fail if used as a measure and/or means of clarification regarding the Divine.) ...Thus, we are left with ancient, but sufficient, information by which to live and worship. In sum, with the epistemological limitations left in place, it seems God has presented to humanity (or each individual) a 'kind' of Rorschach Test where each of us will likely 'see' and 'respond' in different ways. Our visions could even change about what we 'think' we are seeing over time. And that is where we are.

By the way PhiloVoid. Could you refer me to the biblical verse(es) that you are referring to when saying "we would also be attempting to surmount an epistemological barrier that Christ and His Apostles indicated exists between humanity and the Divine"? Thanks

 

[Joshua260]

Darwin never taught that some species should survive over others ....

I'll be fair...He taught that there are civilized races and savage races, and that the civilized races would soon exterminate the savage ones.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man"

and now Hitler:

"‘If I can accept a divine Commandment, it’s this one: “Thou shalt preserve the species.” The life of the individual must not be set at too high a price. If the individual were important in the eyes of nature, nature would take care to preserve him. Amongst the millions of eggs a fly lays, very few are hatched out — and yet the race of flies thrives.’"

I always like to quote from the book that was at the center of the scopes trial...evolution taken to a disturbing consequence:

"The Remedy. - If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country."

Anyway, the point was that atheism provides no basis for objective moral values and duties. Therefore, you have no authority to claim that any action is right or wrong, only what is "convenient", and I appreciate that you were honest enough not to deny that fact.

Hitler ... was a Christian who had some very bizarre supernatural beliefs.

Really? Do you think Jesus would call Hitler a Christian?

Even if the existence God is the only justification for morality (which I strongly disagree with) that does not suggest that the Christian God is the moral law giver..

What I said was that if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Even noted atheists such as Russell and Dawkins admit this.

Dawkins:
“there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being”

There are many philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and Christian evidences that support the god of the bible. The bible clearly teaches that God is the moral law-giver. If objective moral values and duties exist, then I don't see any other viable candidate.

You may have to clarify for me a bit. All atheism is is an examination of existing evidence for and against the existence of God and a conclusion that belief in God is not reasonable based on the evidence presented. No more no less.

Are you unaware of definition number 2b?

1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness


2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By the way PhiloVoid. Could you refer me to the biblical verse(es) that you are referring to when saying "we would also be attempting to surmount an epistemological barrier that Christ and His Apostles indicated exists between humanity and the Divine"? Thanks

Alien444,

Do you want me to go chapter by chapter through the New Testament?

Or, can I just give you one or two as general example?

 

[AllanV]

Hi, haven't been on this forum for a while.

When 26 years, in a personal experience of God many concepts as whole answers were revealed.
The mind of an immortal was shown in mine as a comparison and how mine did not measure up. This is the mind that Jesus thinks from. This mind can be attained.


It was realized God occupies the same space as every object. God makes everything seen appear instantly at every moment. God is close at hand.

God wears light as a garment. We have our being and presence in God.

God is an energizing Spirit. God is a life giving Spirit.

God puts the energy in the atom and the life in the cell.

God is eternal and the universe appears at every instant by His power.

Faith is weak and lack of belief stands in the way of healing. Church doctrine needs to be looked at.
There are always new comers and those weak in the faith but there should be some who could purify their self in some dedicated time.

 

[AllanV]

Where is Satan?

Satan deceives the whole world.

Understanding who or what Satan is, is about understanding what goes on in own mind and in the personality with perceptions and interaction with reactions. Satan is a ruler in a Kingdom that has been overcome by Jesus. A person or group can be translated from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God. But they must overcome as Jesus did and He will show the way in.
All human interaction begins in the mind. Even facial expressions, behavior and emotional state, strength and weakness. Self expression, self indulgence, self belief predominate, but the personality is loaded with faults mostly seen by others. We learn to become comfortable with those things that go on in our own minds but they do not need to be there. There is an added dimension where the personality is subtlety projected and is remembered. Something of one personality is projected from one mind to another and a bonding takes place. Rebelliousness is as witchcraft indicates the human is active from the mind using the will to empower belief to get what it wants and this is wrapped up in a personality.
Satan's power is to bond everyone in the same mind with some deception and therefore keeping God out of the mind and the self in. Instead of believing in God a person believes in own self from that perspective entirely. If a person is able to believe in God there is no judgement and the person will attain immortality.

 

[AllanV]

Adults are rebellious and babies to teenagers mimic and learn their skills from them and each other. It comes from the nature in man and the skills to manipulate, control are learned and applied by every one. The mind is generally predatory and searches for weakness in the emotional make up and more often than not this requires a strong defensive mind, and this hides God in the mind.
We all place a certain energy on the words that are spoken and they can come out as pointed remarks, lacking respect, condescending, anger, fear and everything else. It is the energy that is read because as humans everyone is familiar with it. It is taken into the mind of another person where sensations are produced in the body. The feelings being produced bring a response. Some people use their knowledge and ability in this realm of the mind to manipulate and control others. But most are equally empowered and learn skills to deflect any confidence trickery but the vulnerable are not. By being high minded or above it all a person can have the idea they are impregnable but they set themselves up for addictive and gullible behavior. They think they are making their own mind up but the good or bad feelings are being put there in the first place by some one who is masking their true intentions.
The mind connections taking place are regarded as witchcraft. The subconscious works at a rate that is far greater than normal thought and it processes what is being heard to create feelings.

 

[hankroberts]

alien444, I see that you are engaged in several different conversations here. That is perhaps why you have not engaged my comments. I last posted on the 17th. When you conclude your conversations with the others we could possibly resume ours. Meanwhile I'll sit back and watch.