"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

[muichimotsu]

Lack of belief, i don't believe in the existence of God, is the same, i don't see why atheists need to differentiate them. Don't complicate things.

The problem is you're vastly oversimplifying the distinction in the same way you think innocent must mean not guilty, but they're not remotely the same thing.

You don't believe in Zeus, does that mean you necessarily assert you believe Zeus doesn't exist or that you aren't convinced by people's "evidence" of it?

 

[muichimotsu]

Credulous or incredolous people gain a lot meeting Jesus, for you is just another false religion, but the gospel works.

It doesn't work in itself, it's merely convincing to some people, but not to others, I was never moved by the claims except in some vague desire to conform to people's expectations, but I quickly realized that was a waste of energy, because relationships can be abusive and toxic in regards to expecting people to obey without question and just go along with things even if they seem questionable, the very definition of authoritarianism.

I don't use false or true religion as a distinction, all religions to me are nonsense

 

[Lion IRC]

all theists have left to do, presumably, is to demonstrate the Bible specifically.

I'd be happy to give you a personal demonstration of the bible.
I can show you the cover, the pages, example chapters.
Free in home demo for 7 days. Yours to keep if you decide you want one of your own.

 

[cvanwey]

I'd be happy to give you a personal demonstration of the bible.
I can show you the cover, the pages, example chapters.
Free in home demo for 7 days. Yours to keep if you decide you want one of your own.

Not only have I had the demo, it was 'mine to keep' for decades. I even read it...

I'll ask you what I have recently asked another...

How might one go from a deist to a Christian? Why the Bible, verses any opposing claim(s)? Or even yet, adhering to no positive claims at all, and just remaining a deist?

 

[A_Thinker]

Not only have I had the demo, it was 'mine to keep' for decades. I even read it...

I'll ask you what I have recently asked another...

How might one go from a deist to a Christian? Why the Bible, verses any opposing claim(s)? Or even yet, adhering to no positive claims at all, and just remaining a deist?

Read the gospels (i.e. the life of Christ).

Consider His claim that He was representing a higher intelligence intent upon saving humanity from itself ...

 

[Lion IRC]

How might one go from a deist to a Christian? Why the Bible, verses any opposing claim(s)? Or even yet, adhering to no positive claims at all, and just remaining a deist?

Does the deist have any eschatology? Does the deist have any soteriology? Is there even any direction of time in deism?

 

[cvanwey]

Read the gospels (i.e. the life of Christ).

As I already told @Lion IRC ... I already have. In fact, I read the entire Bible.

Consider His claim that He was representing a higher intelligence intent upon saving humanity from itself ...

Many have made claims; before Him and after Him... What makes Jesus so special, among all the rest before Him and after Him?

 

[cvanwey]

Does the deist have any eschatology? Does the deist have any soteriology?

Let's say this hypothetical deist is concerned about what is true. While, at the very same time, having to also acknowledge the very small possibility of solipsism

Let's also say this hypothetical deist has read the Bible, the Rigveda, Scientology, etc etc etc....

I honestly do not see how one's "concern" has any truth value? What one prefers has no relevancy to what is actually true, in regards to a God claim; agreed?

Is there even any direction of time in deism?

?

 

[Lion IRC]

Let's say this hypothetical deist is concerned about what is true. While, at the very same time, having to also acknowledge the very small possibility of solipsism

Everyone is concerned with the truth of what they believe. But I was asking you about eschatology (end times) and soteriology (salvation) in whatever version of deism you 'hypothetically' hold to. You specifically asked about the gap between deism and Christianity. And it seems to me that these are key differences. How does deism help anyone and what is its relevance if its a journey with no destination and no purpose?

Let's also say this hypothetical deist has read the Bible, the Rigveda, Scientology, etc etc etc....

Yes. This biblical theist has read comparative religion too. Welcome to the party.
Have you made a decision yet?

I honestly do not see how one's "concern" has any truth value?

I'm concerned about the truth.
Seeking the truth is a worthy thing to concern yourself with.
See John 4:6

What one prefers has no relevancy to what is actually true, in regards to a God claim; agreed?

I prefer what is actually true.

Is there even any direction of time in deism?

?

What does the question mark signify?
I was asking you if your hypothetical version of deism follows any 'direction'. Plot development. Story line. Character development. Conflict/resolution. Exposition. Denouement...

 

[cvanwey]

Everyone is concerned with the truth of what they believe. But I was asking you about eschatology (end times) and soteriology (salvation) in whatever version of deism you 'hypothetically' hold to. You specifically asked about the gap between deism and Christianity. And it seems to me that these are key differences. How does deism help anyone and what is its relevance if its a journey with no destination and no purpose?

You asked if this deist has any eschatology and/or soteriology. (S)he may or may not ascribe to such. However, I see these topics as non-starters... Why? Deism can mean when you die, you are dead. When you die, you ascend to somewhere else. Other other other... As you too seem to realize, there exists more 'truth' claims than one can shake a stick at. What makes one true, and another false? Or maybe, they are all equally flawed? Does there have to be some type of "revelation process", "salvation process," other? Who's to say such a higher power is still even around, or even cares for that matter?

As we seem to agree, all people want to know if what they adhere to can be "properly justified."

The purpose of this thread is to side step all arguments for deism. However, once we get to any specific theological doctrine, (Christianity in this case), it more-so looks that 'truth assignment" instead requires 'faith" and/or hope? Many such 'theological claims for truth' now become inferred by the use of a completely different epistemological toolbox, verses the one used to assess all other inferences and apprehensions about their known reality?.?.?

Yes. This biblical theist has read comparative religion too. Welcome to the party.

Have you made a decision yet?

Thus far, none of them hold any more water than the next. May I ask you how Christianity ultimately became the winner for you?

I prefer what is actually true.

Me too. So please convince me of the truth in Christianity.

What does the question mark signify?

I was asking you if your hypothetical version of deism follows any 'direction'. Plot development. Story line. Character development. Conflict/resolution. Exposition. Denouement...

As touched on above, why MUST there be some redeemer? Sure, the Bible makes this claim. --- That we are all vile and in need of redemption. My story is simple...

I already concede all arguments to support deism. I ascribe to no requirements regarding 'end times' or 'salvation'. Sure, I know those claims are made, but the evidence looks severely lacking to support the assertion(s). But I'm always open to anything to change my mind.

I guess the ball is in your proverbial court now. What evidence suggests that Jesus is the one?

 

[Lion IRC]

Why should I care about a pointless deist 'god' who doesn't care about a pointless Lion IRC? Even if that were true, it would be a meaningless truth.

Biblical theism has mutual respect, it has a salvific context, and it has a direction in time. Deism has none of these.

Its not... what's the evidence for Jesus?

Rather, its...Jesus is the evidence that what I believe is true.

 

[cvanwey]

Why should I care about a pointless deist 'god' who doesn't care about a pointless Lion IRC? Even if that were true, it would be a meaningless truth.

I'm not asking why you would care about a god whom does not interact with you. I'm asking if you care for truth? As you then previously posted in #628:

"I prefer what is actually true."

Now it sounds as if you do not prefer to know the truth, if the truth does not result in a personal God?

How were you able to conclude that a personal God exists? Thus far, it sounds like it's because that is what you would prefer? Which is what I started to elude to as well, in post #628.

If the truth was that a detached creator is the actual conclusion, would you care to even know?

Further, if you can instead prove that such said deity is personal, (i.e) Jesus, how do you know?

Biblical theism has mutual respect, it has a salvific context, and it has a direction in time. Deism has none of these.

None of which means it must be true. How do you know Jesus is Lord?

Its not... what's the evidence for Jesus?

Rather, its...Jesus is the evidence that what I believe is true.

I've already touched upon this prior... Many have made claims of truth. How were you able to conclude Jesus is the one, and all the others are not? Or even further, that such an agent has yet to be discovered, or never will be?

 

[Lion IRC]

Now it sounds as if you do not prefer to know the truth, if the truth does not result in a personal God?

There is no falsehood I prefer.
Now, please use the quote function rather than;

"...it sounds like you [insert strawman here]"

 

[cvanwey]

There is no falsehood I prefer.
Now, please use the quote function rather than;

"...it sounds like you [insert strawman here]"

I'm asking you questions. Please notice the question marks Feel free to clarify. I'm not "strawmaning" you. Is this why you are not really engaging? You think I'm putting words into your mouth?

I'll ask the beef of this exchange again, since you seem to be slipping away ever so slowly...

(post #632) Many have made claims of truth. How were you able to conclude Jesus is the one, and all the others are not? Or even further, that such an agent has yet to be discovered, or never will be?

Another point I made prior, for which you ignored...

(post #630) Many such 'theological claims for truth' now become inferred by the use of a completely different epistemological toolbox, verses the one used to assess all other inferences and apprehensions about their known reality.

Do you use the same tools to assess truth in Jesus, as you do for every other claim for truth?

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm asking you questions. Please notice the question marks Feel free to clarify. I'm not "strawmaning" you. Is this why you are not really engaging?

I dont need to engage in defending a position which I do not hold.

You think I'm putting words into your mouth?

No. I think you're trying to.

I'll ask the beef of this exchange again, since you seem to be slipping away ever so slowly...

Questions and answers are a helpful way to avoid strawman presumptions.

(post #632) Many have made claims of truth. How were you able to conclude Jesus is the one, and all the others are not?

There's much more evidence for biblical theism and the case for Christianity than any other purported divinity claims. Furthermore, much/most of the evidence for other purported divinity claims overlaps that of biblical theism - its not so contentious as to make the claims mutually exclusive.

In any case, I dont need to debunk all other religions. That task belongs to atheists.

Or even further, that such an agent has yet to be discovered, or never will be?

Jesus is not yet to be 'discovered'. God is not unknown. His existence is attested and corroborated by billions of your fellow human beings.

Another point I made prior, for which you ignored...

I read thousands of internet forum posts where 'points' are made.
The fact that I don't respond to every single 'point' does not mean I'm ignoring those points.

(post #630) Many such 'theological claims for truth' now become inferred by the use of a completely different epistemological toolbox, verses the one used to assess all other inferences and apprehensions about their known reality.

I dont accept this claim. Your disagreement or finding someone's arguments unpersuasive, doesn't mean they are using "a completely different" epistemic toolbox. I dont assert or think that atheists use a different epistemology than mine.
Juries are routinely divided over whether a certain witness is 'credible'. That doesn't mean jurors are using completely different epistemic toolboxes.

Do you use the same tools to assess truth in Jesus, as you do for every other claim for truth?

Yes. Of course. And I presume you do likewise with respect to your beliefs about God.

 

[A_Thinker]

Many have made claims; before Him and after Him... What makes Jesus so special, among all the rest before Him and after Him?

Many have made claims that they were an otherworldly intelligence, ... sent to save mankind from its worst excesses, ... and willing to lead the way to cooperation between the universe's various forms of intelligent life ?

And to have died in the effort, put to death by the very people He came to save, ... BUT being successful in convincing a third of the planet's population of His truth ???

 

[cvanwey]

[/COLOR]
Questions and answers are a helpful way to avoid strawman presumptions.

Bingo I've been asking you questions. Sometimes you answer them. Sometimes you don't. Other times you accuse me of producing a strawman.

There's much more evidence for biblical theism and the case for Christianity than any other purported divinity claims.

Please start by giving me the best piece of evidence.

In any case, I dont need to debunk all other religions. That task belongs to atheists.

Well, you conclude that yours is true, and all others are false. Hence, how do you know yours is true, while all others are false? Unless you think others may too still be true?

Jesus is not yet to be 'discovered'.

Not sure what you mean here? There's a Book, which states Jesus has already been 'discovered'?

God is not unknown.

Which claimed God(s), and how do you know?

His existence is attested and corroborated by billions of your fellow human beings.

Is this the best piece of evidence which establishes your claimed God as being real? If so, I'd like to explore this claim.

The fact that I don't respond to every single 'point' does not mean I'm ignoring those points.

Yes it does.

I dont accept this claim. Your disagreement or finding someone's arguments unpersuasive, doesn't mean they are using "a completely different" epistemic toolbox. I dont assert or think that atheists use a different epistemology than mine.
Juries are routinely divided over whether a certain witness is 'credible'. That doesn't mean jurors are using completely different epistemic toolboxes.

We may be answering differing statements. However, I will not accuse you of presenting fallacious arguments here

What I mean, is that some seem to use one tool box to discern truth in most claims consistently. But when it comes to the topic of God, some of those same individuals seem to then use a differing set of tools.

You stated below that you use the same tool box for all claims. So do I.

Hence, maybe once you start presenting the actual pieces of evidence for truth in Jesus, we will see how this pans out?

My hypothesis is that one of us is 'creating special circumstances' to either accept the claim (you), or, continue to doubt the claim (me)

[HINT] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[cvanwey]

Please re-read my last statement carefully... I stated "Many have made claims; before Him and after Him..."

Now to address your response...

Many have made claims that they were an otherworldly intelligence, ... sent to save mankind from its worst excesses, ... and willing to lead the way to cooperation between the universe's various forms of intelligent life ?

I believe so, yes. I also believe that it's quite possible they believe(d) it too. However, we may also want to consider the topic of legend. We may additionally want to consider the topic of how oral tradition works. We may then also want to consider how many times stories were told, before first placing them to paper? We may then want to investigate how many times that story was revised (either due to human error, intent, and/or other)? We may also want to know who actually wrote such claims? We may then want to know if any of those prior revisions were preserved? etc etc etc.....

And to have died in the effort, put to death by the very people He came to save, ...

This statement can go in differing directions.... I'll start here. I'd assume you would agree that if YHWH truly exists, He has the ability to create any rules He wishes, right?

I'd also imagine, because I've read the Bible, that Jesus already knew He was going to be put to death, right?

Assuming both above virtually rhetorical questions are answered 'yes', then we may proceed.

In that day and age, crucifixion was a fairly common way of execution. I also do not find it unreasonable to state that many were very superstitious during this time period. Heck, women were being burned at the stake, having been accused of being witches... Does this mean they were witches?

My points being...

- Many have been killed, being accused of having special powers.
- In this story line, God's created rule was to make for the necessity of being killed to atone for all sin.

BUT being successful in convincing a third of the planet's population of His truth ???

It's quite possible the number of Muslims will overtake the number of Christians at some point. This must mean that Muhammad really did fly up to heaven on a white horse, right?

 

[Lion IRC]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

The the most extraordinary claim of all is the one made by skeptics who assert that EVERY SINGLE miracle/supernatural claim made throughout the entire course of human history are all fabrications. All lies, delusions, 'imagined' sensory experience.

For thousands and thousands of years, millions/billions of humans have reported and corroborated direct, shared, sensory evidence of something they sincerely think was a supernatural event. By contrast, a relatively minuscule number - a tiny percentage - of humans (called skeptics/atheists) make the extraordinary claim that we (theists) are all lunatics or liars.

 

[cvanwey]

The the most extraordinary claim of all is the one made by skeptics who assert that EVERY SINGLE miracle/supernatural claim made throughout the entire course of human history are all fabrications. All lies, delusions, 'imagined' sensory experience.

I'm sorry some say things like this... I'm not one of them. I'm aware there have been countless anecdotal personal experiences about God(s), aliens, ghosts, haunted houses, etc etc etc etc...

Who am I to tell them they are WRONG?

Moving forward, I'm here to explore, that's all.

For thousands and thousands of years, millions/billions of humans have reported and corroborated direct, shared, sensory evidence of something they sincerely think was a supernatural event. By contrast, a relatively minuscule number - a tiny percentage - of humans (called skeptics/atheists) make the extraordinary claim that we (theists) are all lunatics or liars.

I'm not a big fan of Michael Shermer, but he raised, what seems to be a great point, in an Oxford debate a few years back. In essence, one of his points is that is DOES make sense for most to invoke some type of agency. Rather than go into the spiel, I'll provide the link: