How does one come to believe something?

HitchSlap said:

Actually, there is zero public evidence that Jesus was publicly executed. So based on the evidence, the claim that Jesus was publicly executed is false.

Click to expand...

It was made public that he was going to be crucified, therefore the public knew it was going to happen. Many people saw it happen including Roman guards. I guess you don't have to consider it public, but more than 1 person witnessed it.

Chriliman said:

It was made public that he was going to be crucified, therefore the public knew it was going to happen. Many people saw it happen including Roman guards. I guess you don't have to consider it public, but more than 1 person witnessed it.

Click to expand...

Without evidence to back up your assertion, this can be classified as a false claim.

HitchSlap said:

Without evidence to back up your assertion, this can be classified as a false claim.

Click to expand...

Just keep being objective and open to new evidence

HitchSlap said:

Without evidence to back up your assertion, this can be classified as a false claim.

Click to expand...

Btw, if a claim can't be proven true or false, it should not be considered either true or false, just unverified or unknown.

Joshua260 said:

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that's what they were saying? That looks like a garbled version of something atheists might say.

For instance, I might say that I can't force myself to believe that the Moon is made out of green cheese. That doesn't mean that it is impossible for someone to believe that, but it just isn't possible for me to believe that given my context of knowledge and my critical thinking skills (I actually do care about evidence).


eudaimonia,

Mark

Chozen1956 said:

But you do. For to reject the light, is to choose darkness. I'm not playing.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are. This is a philosophy forum: your empty threats aren't scaring anyone.

Chozen1956 said:

The evidence is all around us giving us ample reason to receive the knowledge of God. It is the fool who thinks otherwise.

Click to expand...

Or it is the wise person who thinks otherwise.

Despite his lengthy explanations and micro-fanatical deductions, he who refutes, epically totalitarian proof of the miraculous God

Click to expand...

Your Freudian slip is showing.

denies the very relevance of his reason for refuting or believing anything.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, since no one is obligated to rely on Christian presuppositionalism for their epistemology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Chriliman said:

Just keep being objective and open to new evidence

Click to expand...

What objective evidence?

Chozen1956 said:

Faith in Christ is not a decision that we can make, despite all of the rhetoric in churches today that state Jesus can be chosen or not chosen as Lord. Jesus IS Lord. One day, all will know it. We have no authority or ability to decide to choose Christ. Faith is a gift from God.

The sinful nature and/or flesh, is hostile to God and can never decide to choose Him. The sinful nature or flesh loves darkness and hates God. How can it then decide to choose Him?

However, we were chosen, predestined to believe and have been given the gift of faith since Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith.

This gift of faith can never be revoked. It is not dependent upon our reasoning, logic, will, or moral fortitude. Man is fickle as are his emotions and what he believes in can change over time, even over short periods of time.

Those who God called, He also chose. But, man can reject Christ, the Light, God.

See, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and therefore has already reconciled the world and will not count men's sins against them. That is, He will count none but the sin of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is the ultimate rejection of the Christ. That sin will never be forgiven. So those who reject the light and prefer the darkness, will have what they desire, ultimately.

Click to expand...

True however, the individual even though he or she is chosen can rejected Messiah.

Salvation comes by work of the holy spirit. In this we are utterly dependent on G-d working in us. All we can do is be merely willing to allow that to occur. There is literally nothing we can boast in when it comes to our salvation.

ToddNotTodd said:

I don't love darkness and I don't hate something I don't believe in.

But thanks for playing...

Click to expand...

Certainly according to your standard of what is right and what is wrong. Therein lies the problem.

G-d through scripture decree's what is holy and what is not holy. He declares what is right and what is evil. Applying his standard you, I and all mankind in our own way prefer evil over good.

Have you EVER given a false account of what happened? Have you ever had sex with another when you were not married? Have you ever been jealous of another person's property, success or partner? Have you ever taken something that was not yours? Have you ever hated someone to the point where you in your heart or actually said you wished they were dead or seriously injured?

You say you do not believe in the Bible or G-d.... well then, you are your own god. You decide what you think is right and what you think is wrong.

Scripture states throughout the bible when we as mankind "do right in our own eyes" G-d says that is doing EVIL. When you say what you declare is right, not G-d because after all, you dont believe you are choosing darkness over the light.

Scripture speaks DIRECTLY to you in this matter.

John 3: ( Here, Yeshua is speaking to Nicodemus a pharisee and teacher of the Torah)
11“Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. 12“If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. 14“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”


You see, when you say you "dont believe" you have rejected Messiah as being a representation of TRUTH. He spoke that many would reject the light. They do so because they prefer darkness. For if you did not prefer darkness you would come to the Light where you can be redeemed and begin to walk in righteousness according to what G-d declares is being Holy.

bhsmte said:

Not much of a demonstration.

Give me an example. Like, the bible stating there was a global flood, Jesus was resurrected, etc.. You know, the miracle claims in the bible. How do you go about "objectively" determining whether they are true claims?

Click to expand...

I see.... tell me, do you apply the same demand for "proof" about all historical figures?

Applying the standard you are attempting to use, you can not prove that any of the founding fathers (jefferson, franklin, adams, washington) ever lived....

You can not bring forward any "proof"..... Any testimony or historical documents would carry no more or less "proof" of their existence than that of Christ

BukiRob said:

I see.... tell me, do you apply the same demand for "proof" about all historical figures?

Applying the standard you are attempting to use, you can not prove that any of the founding fathers (jefferson, franklin, adams, washington) ever lived....

You can not bring forward any "proof"..... Any testimony or historical documents would carry no more or less "proof" of their existence than that of Christ

Click to expand...

What?

The evidence we have to determine the founding fathers lived is overwhelming, compared to Jesus.

And, I was discussing evidence that certain miracles actually happened in the bible, not whether Jesus existed.

Joshua260 said:

....
1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

No.
That's not how Jesus said faith becomes real and true.
He said, and in Harmony , of course, with all God's Word,
that faith in God,
believing and knowing and living with certainty that God Rewards those who seek HIM,
is a GIFT, SHEER GIFT.

Chriliman said:

It was made public that he was going to be crucified, therefore the public knew it was going to happen. Many people saw it happen including Roman guards. I guess you don't have to consider it public, but more than 1 person witnessed it.

Click to expand...

Uh, no.

It is said that many people witnessed it, but then again, I can say that many people witnessed the UFO that landed in my backyard last night.

Chriliman said:

Btw, if a claim can't be proven true or false, it should not be considered either true or false, just unverified or unknown.

Click to expand...

Like the claim that there are faeries in my garden? You can't see them or feel them or hear them or detect them in any way. You can't prove they are not there, but I doubt that you're going to consider that they might actually be real.

bhsmte said:

What?

The evidence we have to determine the founding fathers lived is overwhelming, compared to Jesus.

And, I was discussing evidence that certain miracles actually happened in the bible, not whether Jesus existed.

Click to expand...

No actually that would not be true but then atheist tend to make up things to support their own view.

There are more ancient copies and fragment texts of the New Testament than any other book in antiquity and the next closest ancient manuscript is not even remotely close in terms of the sheer numbers.

In fact, there are more ancient copies of the new testament than ALL of the known copies of:
Lucretius
Pliny
Plato
Demosthenes
Herodotus
Suetonius
Thucydides
Euripides
Aristophanes
Caesar
Livy
Tacitus
Aristotle
Sophocles
Homer

COMBINED. Whats more, the time between the writing of these ancient manuscripts and and their being penned is very small. The Average for the above list is between 800-1300 years between the oldest copies we have and their original copies which of course, we do not have.
The oldest copies of the NT is less than 100 years. However recent discovers of fragments of the book of Mark suggest we may have fragments that are less than 50 years old and perhaps as early as 30-35 years from the date of the actual events being written about.

If we look at the Combined number of manuscripts for the above manuscripts of antiquity we are looking at a TOTAL of ~1010 copies. The only manuscript that has any literary accuracy (comparing various texts) shows that the Illiad by Homer is ~95% pure

We have over 5,600 ancient copies of the New Testament with a greater than 95% literary accuracy.

We have full blown copies of the entire Book of Isaiah found in the caves where the dead sea scrolls were discovered that once translated into English are nearly EXACT copies of what you find in a modern bible.

Men (and women for that matter) will DIE for a cause that they believe to be true but is not... NO ONE will die for a cause that they KNOW is NOT true. Yet all of the writers of the new testament were martyred specifically for their confession that Yeshua was the promised Messiah of Israel.

The weakest of all arguments you can possibly make is that Yeshua did not live and that/or that his life was not as described in scripture. The evidence is OVERWHELMING that he did live and that his life was so impactful that it toppled Rome itself.

In fact, when you examine the new testament story it differs in SIGNIFICANT ways from other writings during and preceding that period of time. Anyone who has studied ancient literature can immediately identify some startling differences. For starters, ever other story told in antiquity deals with people of great importance. The main character's are kings and queens. What they decidedly are NOT are commoners.

Messiah was born by a young maiden who was pledged to be married to a man of the lowest possible class in Israel's culture. It is a misnomer that Joseph was a carpenter... he was a handyman who made his living doing odd jobs. The poorest of the poor.

Yeshua's disciples? Commoners every last one of them. His ministry was not about his own glorification but to minister to the poor, the tax collector's publicans and sinners. He railed against the religious rulers in Israel.... such notions in writing WERE COMPLETELY UNHEARD OF at that time.

His ressurection was not witnessed by the ruling elite, the religious leaders or even the disciples themselves but rather, WOMEN who at that time were considered unreliable as a witness in the ancient world. Yet in reality that IS what would have happened it would have been the women who would have gone to the cemetery to finish taking care of the body for burial.

The very idea that a Jew in good standing in the temple would EVER allow a gentile in their home let alone GO to a gentile's home was unthinkable. For if he or she did such a thing they were UNCLEAN. Yet, the apostle Peter did this very thing because G-d told Peter that Messiah's redemption plan was for ALL mankind and not just the Jew.
The idea that this was "made up" is so ludicrous that no serious, honest open examination could ever come to this conclusion.

Even academics who study this period of time who DO NOT BELIEVE will immediately conceed there is so much evidence that Yeshua lived that to suggest otherwise is considered quackery by mainstream academics

dupe post

KTS said:

Uh, no.

It is said that many people witnessed it, but then again, I can say that many people witnessed the UFO that landed in my backyard last night.

Click to expand...

LOL seriously???? Your going to try and argue that the only evidence of the existence of Messiah is the bible....

Tacitus writings dating 64 AD specifically speaks about Christ, and his death under Pontius Pilate
Pliny the Younger : They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

Josephus mentions both Christ and Christianity in his writings.

Lucian writes: The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.

Again, among serious academia there is no question that Messiah lived and died via crucifixion. Now, they do not agree on other points because that strays into religious beliefs but no one who studies ancient manuscripts will take your ludicrous stance

Joshua260 said:

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence.

Click to expand...

Are you absolutely certain that what several atheists in that thread insisted on, was actually something more like this:

"People only come to justified beliefs by evaluating evidence"?

Because the way you worded it, it is obviously a false statement.

People clearly are able to hold beliefs for wich no evidence at all exists.
Then, off course, there are also those beliefs that ARE the result of "evaluating" evidence, but where the evidence is just extremely bad (or worse: forged) and/or where the "evaluating" is simply completely unreasonable / illogical / unsound / invalid / fallacious.

It's rather obvious that people can make mistakes, be fooled, be lied to,....

Joshua260 said:

1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, or properly basic beliefs.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists by (everything listed in p1).

But if you do not agree with my modified argument, please reply with how you would modify p1 and thus make the argument sound.

Click to expand...

1. People come to believe things for all kinds of reasons (rational as well as irrational)
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, people who are Christians came to believe that God exists for one or more particular reasons, part of the set of P1 being "all kinds of reasons", and wich are not necessarily rational reasons.

Seems like an entirely useless argument.