Maybe He's lying?

[aiki]

That's illogical...

You are positioning it as an all-or-nothing argument, with emotions used to validate it.

What am I positioning as an all-or-nothing argument? And my experience of God is much more than mere emotion, as I explained in my last post.

People were willing to die for an idea or cause only proves that they believed in it that much, not that what they were believing in was real.

This doesn't wash. The disciples didn't die for an idea; they died because they saw and interacted with the risen Christ and proclaimed that they had. The disciples didn't die for a "cause" they manufactured out of their heads, or that was handed down to them via religious tradition, but for a cause that arose out of their first-hand experience of the resurrected Christ.

Now, you can attempt to dismiss all that the Gospels relate about this matter by saying, "Well, that's just what they are telling you. They could be lying." The simplest and most reasonable way, however, to account for the disciples death-defying assertions concerning Christ was that they truly saw him alive after he was dead and buried. As I noted already, as Jews they certainly didn't have any religious reason to concoct a story of Christ's resurrection. Doing so would have run completely contrary to everything they understood about resurrection. And what possible purpose could be served by deceiving people into believing Christ was dead and then resurrected? In light of these facts, the best explanation for the disciples' behaviour was that they actually did see and interact with Christ after his death and burial.

Their willingness to die doesn't validate their claim in any way.

I disagree. I think their willingness to die for what they were proclaiming about Jesus' resurrection - at the very least - rules out the idea that they knew they were lying. One is forced by this fact to ask what, then, would have motivated the disciples to say such things? Hallucination? No, people don't hallucinate in groups, which is what would have had to happen to the disciples for this theory to work. Insanity? The disciples' would all have had to go crazy about the exact same thing in the exact same way. This is extremely unlikely. What's left? The truth: the disciples actually saw Jesus alive after being dead and buried.

I'll make it simple, for the both of us, so you don't have to respond to anything but one question.

Do you believe the Bible is the word of your god?

I believe the Bible contains the revelation and wisdom of God. The Bible isn't just God saying things, however, but also the record of His doing things. God didn't just say, "I am a good, trustworthy God!" He also proved it in how He acted toward humanity. God would only be guilty of circular reasoning if He said, "I am a good, trustworthy God because I say I am!" But this isn't what He does. Instead, He says, "I am a good and trustworthy God and I'll show you!" And so He did - by dying on a cross for the sins of humanity.

Selah.

 

[elman]

Originally Posted by Emmy
If perhaps He is lying, who do you think He is? Why should He lie?

I have no idea, but that isn't relevant.

Think about it: Have you ever known the reason someone was lying to you, before you knew that they were lying to you?

No, you can't.

It cannot be proven that God exists or does not exist. I find it reasonable to assume we exist for a reason--that brings us to a Creator. We can then assume a loving good Creator or an evil Creator or a mixture or a Creator that is neither evil or good. I find a loving Creator the more reasonable assumption. That means the Creator would not be lying to us. Lying is not being loving and caring. Before the Creator can lie to us however it must say something and I have never heard the Creator actually say something.

 

[Non sequitur]

I find it reasonable to assume we exist for a reason--that brings us to a Creator. We can then assume a loving good Creator or an evil Creator or a mixture or a Creator that is neither evil or good.

You can find it reasonable to assume that, but nothing dictates that we had to exist for no reason.

First, you want to think we exist for a reason.

Second, you may not have come to that conclusion if religion didn't plant that seed.

I find a loving Creator the more reasonable assumption. That means the Creator would not be lying to us.

Whoa, there!

You find it more reasonable... that means it definitively is???

You don't see that huge assertive jump there???

What did you base that reasonable assumption on? It sounds nicer?




Surely you musty be joking in all this.

It was reasonable to assume the earth was flat (people not coming back because they fell of the earth, detailed drawings of it and "it's a reasonable assumption"), therefore THE EARTH MUST BE FLAT AND I WILL ARRIVE AT EVERY FUTURE CONCLUSION BASED ON MY ACCEPTANCE OF THAT.

That's doesn't sound batsh*t crazy and insane?!

 

[Non sequitur]

I think their willingness to die for what they were proclaiming about Jesus' resurrection - at the very least - rules out the idea that they knew they were lying. One is forced by this fact to ask what, then, would have motivated the disciples to say such things? Hallucination? No, people don't hallucinate in groups, which is what would have had to happen to the disciples for this theory to work. Insanity? The disciples' would all have had to go crazy about the exact same thing in the exact same way. This is extremely unlikely. What's left?

A lot of things?

The truth: the disciples actually saw Jesus alive after being dead and buried.

BAM!

Did you see me ignoring proven examples and zig-zagging around anything else?

 

[aiki]

Read Dr. Habermas's book. He demonstrates fairly exhaustively why all the alternatives to the biblical account of Christ's death, burial and resurrection don't fly. I have read it, which is why I feel no compulsion to wade through every possible theory in this thread.

Selah.

 

[Non sequitur]

Read Dr. Habermas's book...

I see how you didn't address any of the links debunking your claims.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

He demonstrates fairly exhaustively why all the alternatives to the biblical account of Christ's death, burial and resurrection don't fly. I have read it, which is why I feel no compulsion to wade through every possible theory in this thread.

Selah.

An American evangelical Christian apologists' demonstrates that the alternatives to his Christian beliefs don't fly???

Is that supposed to be earth shattering?

What would he do but talk about how the alternatives don't fly? That's just stupid.


Is a Mathematician going to write a book about math, that arrives at something other than mathematics? No.

Would you expect it to? No.



You really don't see how that invalidates things?

 

[elman]

You can find it reasonable to assume that, but nothing dictates that we had to exist for no reason.

Nothing I said indicated anything dictated we had to exist for no reason.

First, you want to think we exist for a reason.

I do like the idea that our existence is meaningful as oppposed to ultimate meaninglessness.

Second, you may not have come to that conclusion if religion didn't plant that seed.

I think I came to that conclusion without religion being involved.

Whoa, there!

You find it more reasonable... that means it definitively is???

Why would finding something reasonable mean it definitely is?

You don't see that huge assertive jump there???

No

What did you base that reasonable assumption on? It sounds nicer?

I based in on our inate ability to know what is loving and what is not and our knowledge that the loving way is right and the cruel hateful way is wrong.

Surely you musty be joking in all this.

It was reasonable to assume the earth was flat (people not coming back because they fell of the earth, detailed drawings of it and "it's a reasonable assumption"), therefore THE EARTH MUST BE FLAT AND I WILL ARRIVE AT EVERY FUTURE CONCLUSION BASED ON MY ACCEPTANCE OF THAT.

What does the assumption of a flat earth have to do with what I said?

 

[Non sequitur]

What does the assumption of a flat earth have to do with what I said?

Because your premise is mostly based on what you find more appealing, which you use to validate your belief.

An appealing idea should carry no weight in determining somethings validity.

"I find the idea of women as loving and honest, as apposed to lying and deceitful, nicer. Therefore I choose to believe that women are never lying or deceitful", is your logic.


While I may find the idea of a never ending afterlife filled with joy as apposed to when I die I'm dead, more appealing, I understand that it is appealing to my emotions, as apposed to any reality, and therefore should carry no weight in any decision process.

 

[elman]

Because your premise is mostly based on what you find more appealing, which you use to validate your belief.

An appealing idea should carry no weight in determining somethings validity.

A theory can be both reasonable and appealing.

"I find the idea of women as loving and honest, as apposed to lying and deceitful, nicer. Therefore I choose to believe that women are never lying or deceitful", is your logic.

No that is not my logic.

While I may find the idea of a never ending afterlife filled with joy as apposed to when I die I'm dead, more appealing, I understand that it is appealing to my emotions, as apposed to any reality, and therefore should carry no weight in any decision process.

Does the fact that you are not able to be sure of reality carry any weight? I agree however that wanting something to be that way is not evidence of anything. Finding it reasonable that we exist for a reason rather than simply random accidental meaningless coincidence is not simply because I want it that way.

 

[Non sequitur]

A theory can be both reasonable and appealing.

Agreed

No that is not my logic.

Yeah it is.

Does the fact that you are not able to be sure of reality carry any weight?

Nope, only the demonstrable stuff does.

I agree however that wanting something to be that way is not evidence of anything. Finding it reasonable that we exist for a reason rather than simply random accidental meaningless coincidence is not simply because I want it that way.

Ah the, "Just because I would like to believe it, it has no direct affect on my belief", excuse.

Helps validate and justify claims, any time and every time.

 

[lucaspa]

This is one question I can't wrap my head around.

When I have asked, "How do you know that God is who he says he is?", the most frequent response is either one answer, the other or both.

- Bible verses are quoted
- He says he is

The problem with these are:

You can't use Bible verses as true, without first establishing that the speaker/source of the material is telling the truth.

How do you propose to establish this?

How do you establish that anyone is telling the truth? Or that any particular historical document is true?

Sometimes you can check the person or the document against the physical universe. But that depends on what the claims are. For instance, if I say "A city named Auckland is in New Zealand", you can travel to New Zealand and view the city Auckland. That establishes my credibility for that claim. I could then say "Brussels sprouts have a taste that is not only bitter, but causes you to immediately, involunarily vomit." Now what? If you eat Brussels sprouts and they don't taste like this, am I lying? Does it destroy my entire credibility? Is there suddenly no city of Auckland in New Zealand?

What you are doing, Non sequitor, is arguing against an argument, not against the attributes of God. You are saying that an argument for particular attributes of God is invalid. That doesn't say the attributes are not those claimed. You have fallen into your own non-sequitor.

 

[Non sequitur]

What you are doing, Non sequitor, is arguing against an argument, not against the attributes of God. You are saying that an argument for particular attributes of God is invalid. That doesn't say the attributes are not those claimed. You have fallen into your own non-sequitor.

- "The unseen thing is red."
- "If you can't see it, how do you know it is red?
- "Because the unseen thing had it written down, through others, that it is red. Some of the other things written down by those were about the Civil War."
- "Well, it appears all your evidence for it being red originates with writings in which it declared it to be red. The concept wouldn't have been created, if nobody wrote about it. The fact that non-supernatural claims were written, at the same time, lend no credit to the validating the supernatural claims."

Non sequitur?!


What I am doing is: asking a question, providing the responses I was given, addressing those by stating that those responses only create a circular and self-proving answer, and am left still with the question.

 

[aiki]

I see how you didn't address any of the links debunking your claims.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

What links?

I see you haven't agreed to read Dr. Habermas' book. I tip my hat in return.

An American evangelical Christian apologists' demonstrates that the alternatives to his Christian beliefs don't fly???

Is that supposed to be earth shattering?

Earth shattering? No. Illuminating? Perhaps.

What would he do but talk about how the alternatives don't fly? That's just stupid.

What's "just stupid"? That a Christian would offer a defense of his faith? That's not stupid, that's reason. If the alternatives can be proven to be unjustified and false, why shouldn't that be declared? It would be stupid not to challenge something that is demonstrably false. Just because Habermas is a Christian doesn't automatically mean his arguments and defense of his beliefs are not rational or well-founded.

Imagine a gardener who keeps discovering his vegetables gone missing. He declares that it is the rabbits he constantly observes in his garden that are stealing his produce. His neighbor, however, has never seen the rabbits in the garden and suggests instead that the gardener is merely deluded. When the gardener protests and offers a reasoned argument for his beliefs concerning the rabbits, his neighbor simply scoffs and says, "Well, you would say that! Its your garden after all! Only someone on the outside, someone who doesn't believe your crazy rabbit theory, can judge best what the truth about your garden is." But is this so? Is the neighbor a better judge of the truth merely because he doesn't agree? Hardly! No court of law, no formal debate would accept such silly logic - the very logic you're trying to use here in this thread, nonsequitur.

Your prejudice against things Christian seems so acute that it is affecting your ability to think rationally.

Is a Mathematician going to write a book about math, that arrives at something other than mathematics? No.

Would you expect it to? No.

You really don't see how that invalidates things?

If the mathematician is defending mathematical principles, who better to do so than a mathematician?! Certainly not a non-mathematician! And who better to defend the matter of the resurrection than one who has earned his PHd. in the very subject (which is the case with Dr. Habermas)! Habermas' expertise on the subject makes him eminently qualified to assert whether or not this or that theory concerning the resurrection jibes with the facts. He is definitely more to be trusted to be aware of and working from all the facts than someone like yourself who is comparatively ignorant of them. This is painfully obvious and I'm embarrassed for you that you can't see that it is.

Selah.

 

[Non sequitur]

What links?

I see you haven't agreed to read Dr. Habermas' book. I tip my hat in return.

"I think their willingness to die for what they were proclaiming about Jesus' resurrection - at the very least - rules out the idea that they knew they were lying. One is forced by this fact to ask what, then, would have motivated the disciples to say such things? Hallucination? No, people don't hallucinate in groups, which is what would have had to happen to the disciples for this theory to work. Insanity? The disciples' would all have had to go crazy about the exact same thing in the exact same way. This is extremely unlikely. What's left?"

I double-tip, for your misdirection.

Imagine a gardener who keeps discovering his vegetables gone missing. He declares that it is the rabbits he constantly observes in his garden that are stealing his produce. His neighbor, however, has never seen the rabbits in the garden and suggests instead that the gardener is merely deluded. When the gardener protests and offers a reasoned argument for his beliefs concerning the rabbits, his neighbor simply scoffs and says, "Well, you would say that! Its your garden after all! Only someone on the outside, someone who doesn't believe your crazy rabbit theory, can judge best what the truth about your garden is." But is this so? Is the neighbor a better judge of the truth merely because he doesn't agree? Hardly!

While you replaced "reasoned arguments" with "postulated circular logic-type explanation", that's close.

You left out, "If you weren't reading books that talked about magical rabbits, maybe you wouldn't be so inclined to think you experienced them?"

And possibly, "Some security footage would easily verify these pesky rabbits. But I'm sure they don't 'work that way'."

No court of law, no formal debate would accept such silly logic - the very logic you're trying to use here in this thread, nonsequitur.

A court of law wouldn't care.

And would probably look at the person talking about rabbits-that-you-have-to-believe-first-to-"see" a little funny.

 

[razeontherock]

- "The unseen thing is red."
- "If you can't see it, how do you know it is red?
- "Because the unseen thing had it written down, through others, that it is red. Some of the other things written down by those were about the Civil War."
- "Well, it appears all your evidence for it being red originates with writings in which it declared it to be red. The concept wouldn't have been created, if nobody wrote about it. The fact that non-supernatural claims were written, at the same time, lend no credit to the validating the supernatural claims."

Non sequitur?!


What I am doing is: asking a question, providing the responses I was given, addressing those by stating that those responses only create a circular and self-proving answer, and am left still with the question.

You have seen that I am one to point out when someone is being illogical. This logic is actually sound.

There does indeed come a point when we must make a choice, that either
G-d is true, or He doesn't even deserve a capital h.

You are nowhere near that point! The illogic of your position is trying to force yourself into that position. It's like - 'you can't get there from here.' First you have to go ... in this case maybe even lots of 'places," that no doubt neither of us know. Eventually you will (G-d willing) come to realize that Christ is the express image of G-d, and either He deserved the shameful criminal's death He was given, or He didn't, and that His death must've meant something. Something very disturbing.

And maybe someday you may share in the incredible realization that His death actually accomplished something life-changing, something Life giving. But right now, you are not there.

In the meantime it seems to be quite a lot for you just to recognize that some of us you engage here actually think these things through, have spent an incredible amount of effort doing so, and have absolutely nothing to gain personally from even giving you the time of day. You could ponder the ramifications of that ...

ETA: looking at your last post, can you even count the flames? You should, and do some editing ...

 

[Non sequitur]

You have seen that I am one to point out when someone is being illogical. This logic is actually sound.

The illogic of your position is trying to force yourself into that position. It's like - 'you can't get there from here.' First you have to go ... in this case maybe even lots of 'places," that no doubt neither of us know. Eventually you will (G-d willing) come to realize that Christ is the express image of G-d, and either He deserved the shameful criminal's death He was given, or He didn't, and that His death must've meant something. Something very disturbing.

And maybe someday you may share in the incredible realization that His death actually accomplished something life-changing, something Life giving. But right now, you are not there.

My whole point was, if there was origin, where would you be? How would you know to believe? You can't act on what you don't know.

In the meantime it seems to be quite a lot for you just to recognize that some of us you engage here actually think these things through, have spent an incredible amount of effort doing so, and have absolutely nothing to gain personally from even giving you the time of day. You could ponder the ramifications of that ....

Well, if they want to convert someone to their God, I'm assuming that they are aware some go down harder than others.

Would their Jesus had said he, "absolutely nothing to gain personally from even giving you the time of day"?

Are souls that cheap on the black market, now days?


I have thanked several on here, who do not misdirect or give reasonable explanations.

 

[razeontherock]

My whole point was, if there was origin, where would you be? How would you know to believe? You can't act on what you don't know.

"If there was origin?" I can guess what you might mean based on context, but I must point out that Faith being the gift of G-d does not hit you over the head and somehow force itself upon you. It comes by way of "ask (and keep on asking) and ye shall (eventually) receive."

We must take action first, even when we don't really know. And the "point of origin," if that's what you're trying to get at, is really not known. We do come to a crossroads where we know something has changed, however.

Well, if they want to convert someone to their God, I'm assuming that they are aware some go down harder than others.

Would their Jesus had said he, "absolutely nothing to gain personally from even giving you the time of day"? Are souls that cheap on the black market, now days?

You are missing the point that WE do not "convert" anyone. Our part to play is actually quite miniscule, in terms of the miraculous transformation that takes place even in just the new birth, to say nothing of Christian maturity.

And ultimately the greatest human effort involved in the process is on the part of the sinner doing the repenting - after Jesus Himself, of course.

 

[Non sequitur]

"If there was origin?" I can guess what you might mean based on context, but I must point out that Faith being the gift of G-d does not hit you over the head and somehow force itself upon you. It comes by way of "ask (and keep on asking) and ye shall (eventually) receive."

We must take action first, even when we don't really know. And the "point of origin," if that's what you're trying to get at, is really not known. We do come to a crossroads where we know something has changed, however.

Again, the crossroads -or whatever you wanna call it- was only a feasible crossroad, because you already knew about it.

You wouldn't have know about "Faith", "gift of God" or even what to ask for, if it was not already programmed in your brain to do so.

You are missing the point that WE do not "convert" anyone. Our part to play is actually quite miniscule, in terms of the miraculous transformation that takes place even in just the new birth, to say nothing of Christian maturity.

And ultimately the greatest human effort involved in the process is on the part of the sinner doing the repenting - after Jesus Himself, of course.

"Convert", "lead towards God", "minuscule role in the play"... same thing.

 

[razeontherock]

Again, the crossroads -or whatever you wanna call it- was only a feasible crossroad, because you already knew about it.

You wouldn't have know about "Faith", "gift of God" or even what to ask for, if it was not already programmed in your brain to do so.

That "programming" is daily Bible reading.

"Convert", "lead towards God", "minuscule role in the play"... same thing.

Incorrect. Conversion takes a LOT more than the other 2

 

[Non sequitur]

That "programming" is daily Bible reading.

Yes, that would be pre-programming.