- I believe in a god all I've learned about the universe and nature, everything from astrophysics to microbiology, I don't see how it could have happened, and everything exists and work the way it does without a Creator.
Argument from personal incredulity fallacy.
- I believe in God partially because I grew up in a Christian home, there have been several times in my life where God has intervened in my life that I have no explanation for other than "God did it" and partially because of what follows...
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
- I believe Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that partially from his birth, life, and teachings, but mostly due to his resurrection.
I don't know what his birth convinces you of. All it convinces me of is that the author of Matthew is a liar. He took Isaiah 7:14 out of context. Just read Isaiah for yourself:
Chapter 7
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Chapter 8
2And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.
3And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
4For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.
As is commonly known, "virgin" in verse 14 is the poor translation of the Hebrew word "almah." An "almah" is a woman who has not given birth to a child; a "betulah" is a virgin, and if Isaiah meant to refer to a virgin birth then he would've used the proper word.
Isaiah was speaking to King Ahaz, and he was telling king Ahaz that his city would not be sacked. To confirm this prophecy, King Ahaz was allowed to ask for a sign; he refused, but Isaiah insisted and said that a sign would be given anyway. The sign was that a child would be born and that before the child is a man, the enemies of King Ahaz would be destroyed. After delivering the rest of the prophecy, Isaiah gathers witnesses to watch him have sex with a prophetess. She conceives, and Isaiah identifies the child with the prophecy by repeating the same terms and phrases.
If Immanuel is Jesus, then we are to believe that Isaiah essentially told the king, "Your city will not be sacked; the confirmation of this prophecy is a sign that will come to pass 700 years after your death." How absurd is that?
This all arose because Matthew could not read Hebrew. How embarrassing.
I am even more confused about your reference to Christ's life and teachings. I could easily say that for every teaching of Jesus that you adhere to I could name another that you completely ignore, but that would be met with a yawn. I'd have to at least offer a 3:1 ratio to even make it interesting.
Or did you sell all that you have, give the money to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel?
Lastly you mention the resurrection. At least we agree on the fact that this is the lynch pin upon which all claims rest.
Assuming historicity of Jesus, the resurrection is easily debunked. Mark is widely accepted as the first gospel and as the source material for Matthew and Luke. It is also widely accepted that the original copies of Mark end with the boy in the tomb proclaiming that Jesus had risen: the earliest copies of Mark do not mention postmortem appearances of Jesus.
In adding to Mark's version, Matthew and Luke provide their own independent details. For the most part, Matthew might discuss X and be silent on Y while Luke is silent on X and discusses Y. When they both mention the same detail, they rarely contradict one another. Yet when we get to the resurrection, all four gospels contradict each other all over the place. This is because the original version of Mark was what everyone had, and then when everyone spread out in different directions the different groups fabricated their own legends to "complete" what Mark originally left open-ended.
- I believe Jesus resurrected from the dead because I think the literal, physical resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for the origin of Christianity.
There's ultimately three choices when it comes to Jesus,
1) He didn't exist - This doesn't fit into the origins of Christianity. I don't know why anyone would make up a story that gave them no immediate personal gain, wealth, and would ultimately end in their death. There are Roman records consistent with Biblical accounts of persecution, and the vast majority of scholars agree that he did exist.
2) He was just a man - If Jesus was just a man and didn't rise from the dead, 1. Where is his body? 2. If his body was stolen, someone at some point would have cracked and said "We hid it!", or if it was a conspiracy, and only two or three people knew, it's again the worst conspiracy ever as it gives them no personal gain whatsoever.
3) He was who he says he was. - As irrational as the idea of someone rising from the dead is (which is why it's a big deal that Jesus did), the essential either comes down believing sociopathic lunatics or believing that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God.
- Therefore, since Jesus is the Son of God, he would best know how people should live their life. He wrote our biology, psychology, so he would know how to live the best way possible for everyone.
- Thus, I believe Christianity is the best way to live.
Mainly just a mix of CS Lewis with Lee Strobel and the "Why die for a lie?" argument which is already an argument from personal incredulity. On top of that, the "Why die for a lie?" argument is itself a lie - there is no one in history who was a purported eyewitness of the physical resurrection who was also known to have been given the opportunity to recant the gospel and go free or else face torture and/or execution. We don't know what was said at Peter's execution, and if the Catholic traditions on the other martyrs are taken as fact we still don't know what was said. It's not until Polycarp - who was born decades too late - do we see someone saying, "I will not recant Christ and go free."
Christianity is also the only religion with an answer to human suffering and the Problem of Evil that I find acceptable--any god who would not choose to suffer alongside Creation in order to finally redeem it is not good in any meaningful sense, as far as I'm concerned. In the absence of the Christian revelation, I'm pushed to a form of moral relativism, since all of our intuitions about what is right and what is wrong are vindicated in the Resurrection. Without that sort of mirror, we have no way of objectively knowing if our moral compass is pointing north or not. Or if there even is a north. Or a compass!
