Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I will if you can point me to some contemporary corroborative evidence for the bible's claim that he existed. I know of independent contemporary evidence for Herod and Pontius Pilate and some other major figures of the stories; what about Jesus? Just a link or two would help.
I appreciate that, but you are not in a position to determine what is right for me personally, just as I am in no position to do the same for you.
We can debate back and forth on how one concludes what they do, but that is different than claiming to know how someone else should believe, or not believe.
Christianity is based on a figure that was likely to be a real historical figure. Now, in regards to what this person did, what this person said, is where the historical credibility is either very weak, or non existent.
But again, this is why it requires faith.
Willing to go on a snipe hunt for you? No, thanks. Did you follow the evidence, or did you already believe?Read Ehrman's stuff and read the responses.
Read arguments from both sides, that is what I did.
I am not asking you to read just stuff that Christians write. But read stuff from both sides and follow the evidence where it leads, if you are willing.
Anything about this experience rise above simply being imagined?It is the most blessed thing anyone can experience as a human being. Intimate communion with their loving maker. I want you to experience this. That is why I spend the time I do here.
Everything.Anything about this experience rise above simply being imagined?
I don't know - that's why I'm not the one making an assertion. Evidence for human existence is self-evident, and of itself says nothing about when the concept of God was conceived; so - again - what rationale do you have for your assertion?
Ironically, you're using the right word - 'apparent' beginning. The science of cosmology only tells us it was the start of a period of expansion from a very hot, dense state. It says nothing about where that hot, dense state came from. The consensus of cosmologists is that an actual singularity is probably impossible, but that we have no evidence yet of what there might have been. So strictly speaking, it's the beginning of the currently describable universe. It's generally described as 'the beginning of the universe' in the same shorthand way as the observable universe is generally described as 'the universe'; the distinction isn't generally significant unless you're explicitly talking about it.
Ockham's Razor deals with introducing redundant explanatory entities. Positing an eternal and timeless universe (where the big bang is an event) adds no entities to the argument, neither does a temporally closed universe that 'just is' (where the big bang is like a North Pole, with no prior time). There are philosophical arguments against both, but they'd equally apply to an infinite and timeless God concept, and they are the least of its philosophical problems, Ockham's Razor and special pleading apart.
You can think and believe what you like. I was just pointing out that for those who feel the need for it, there are God concepts compatible with our observations of the universe and that make no unsupported claims or assumptions about it.
There's your problem. The question concerns fundamental knowledge about the world - its origins. Thinking outside the box is creative and useful if you know where the edges of the box (of worldly knowledge) are, and you can relate it to, and apply it in, the world; but if it bears no relation to the world, it's less than speculation, it's fantasy - by definition ("An idea with no basis in reality" - Oxford Dictionary).
So you are not open to revising your beliefs under any circumstances, contrary to what you implied earlier?It is true. You will not convince me that Christ does not abide in me and I in Him.
Make an attempt? You just conceded that nothing I could say would ever be enough to prompt you to reconsider your beliefs.But be not downcast by this. You can still make an attempt at persuading me that the Bible is a load of garbage or that Jesus was not God incarnate or that the universe has always existed.
To the best of my understanding, those are still hypotheses, not theories.So every concept and theory science comes up with to explain existence are just claims as well, not proof, right? They're claiming a multi-verse could exist, but they have no proof, so its up to you to believe them.
No. I assert that I am not convinced that there is a god.Do you assert that God does not exist?
Know what? Your posts make little sense.If not then it must mean you actually don't know. All I'm saying is give it time and you will know.
Allegedly. What is this historical event that you allude to?Christianity is based on a historical figure and a historical event.
A man that walked the earth and then was raised from the dead after He was crucified.
Your Maker.What maker?
You have something specific in mind?But nothing specific, or demonstrable?
ResurrectionAllegedly. What is this historical event that you allude to?
To the best of my understanding, those are still hypotheses, not theories.
No. I assert that I am not convinced that there is a god.
Know what? Your posts make little sense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?