Whether God Exists I guess

[All Becomes New]

Could you read the article attached please?

I've already read it before. It's garbage. He uses controversial "facts" to build his case. He is not going by the consensus. A video was made in response to this.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Discussion]

I've already read it before. It's garbage. He uses controversial "facts" to build his case. He is not going by the consensus. A video was made in response to this.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I have watched that video and I still believe the hypothesis is perfectly reasonable, would you be able to articulate here why the case is garbage? Don't know if this matters to you but Dr. Dale Allison thinks it is perfectly reasonable (a Christian bible scholar).

 

[All Becomes New]

I have watched that video and I still believe the hypothesis is perfectly reasonable, would you be able to articulate here why the case is garbage? Don't know if this matters to you but Dr. Dale Allison thinks it is perfectly reasonable (a Christian bible scholar).

I already said why. Paulogia does not use uncontroversial "facts." To go further, if Paulogia wanted to do what Dr. Habermas was doing, he would have to use facts that Christains accept just as Dr. Habermas uses facts that skeptics accept. In other words, Paulogia uses the most skeptical data to make his case which are not uncontrovercial unlike Dr. Habermas' case which virtually all scholars skeptic or not agree with. For more, see this book.

Paulogia's case is pure incredulity. It's not fair with the data.

Amazon.com

 

[Discussion]

I already said why. Paulogia does not use uncontroversial "facts." To go further, if Paulogia wanted to do what Dr. Habermas was doing, he would have to use facts that Christains accept just as Dr. Habermas uses facts that skeptics accept. In other words, Paulogia uses the most skeptical data to make his case which are not uncontrovercial unlike Dr. Habermas' case which virtually all scholars skeptic or not agree with. For more, see this book.

Paulogia's case is pure incredulity. It's not fair with the data.

Amazon.com

If Paul wants to make a case which satisfies those who are not Christian (and as such do not accept many of the facts that Christian scholars do) such as those like Bart Ehrman, this case is very strong. Sorry but I wasn't aware he used any controversial facts although I'm happy to agree he omitted some which he and other skeptical scholars do not agree with (making the case solid as long as they can back up their doubting of the facts omitted). He includes all of Dr. Habermas' minimal facts and explains them naturalistically, any more facts would have to justified.

 

[All Becomes New]

If Paul wants to make a case which satisfies those who are not Christian (and as such do not accept many of the facts that Christian scholars do) such as those like Bart Ehrman, this case is very strong. Sorry but I wasn't aware he used any controversial facts although I'm happy to agree he omitted some which he and other skeptical scholars do not agree with (making the case solid as long as they can back up their doubting of the facts omitted). He includes all of Dr. Habermas' minimal facts and explains them naturalistically, any more facts would have to justified.

Several of his facts are controversial. And he needs ALL of his facts to be true for his naturalistic explanation to carry weight. This is all in the video I posted.

The data is also against his position. For example, like I mentioned, it does not account for the conversion of Apostle Paul or James or the empty tomb.

 

[Discussion]

Several of his facts are controversial. And he needs ALL of his facts to be true for his naturalistic explanation to carry weight. This is all in the video I posted.

The data is also against his position. For example, like I mentioned, it does not account for the conversion of Apostle Paul or James or the empty tomb.

I does account for the conversion of Paul and James and it flatly rejects the empty tomb. Have you even read it?

 

[All Becomes New]

I does account for the conversion of Paul and James and it flatly rejects the empty tomb. Have you even read it?

Been a while since I read it, but yes, I read it. I don't think it is fair with the data, as I have told you repeatedly. There are many independent sources for the empty tomb, so denying this fact is not fair to the data.

 

[Discussion]

Been a while since I read it, but yes, I read it. I don't think it is fair with the data, as I have told you repeatedly. There are many independent sources for the empty tomb, so denying this fact is not fair to the data.

Um, there's just the gospels for the empty tomb. I guess you're counting them as multiple independant sources? Anyway unless you can demonstate to me where he's not fair with data other than just saying it I don't think you're going to demonstrate anything to me.

 

[jacks]

Would you be able to be provide any kind of quick list for things you'd reccomend?

I wish I could, as I said it is a very personal journey. Though here are a few things that meant something to me.

People: Don't let Christians put you off from Christianity. (You can find difficult people in all areas.) If someone is just arguing with you, with no clear motive besides "winning", move on. You can find some very thoughtful people also, these are the ones who should help guide you.
The Bible: Before I was a Christian the only book that meant anything to me was "Ecclesiastes" from the old testament. Everyone would always recommend books from the New Testament, but I wasn't ready for that personally. Besides if you read Ecclesiastes you will see where all those famous sayings come from.
Other sources: I found Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis to be very informative. Though by the time I read it, I was already halfway Christian.
I should also mention before I even considered Christianity I had studied other philosophies and for a while considered myself a Taoist. For some reason for me Christianity was the last thing I considered.

Most importantly just keep doing what you are doing. Asking questions with an open mind.

 

[All Becomes New]

Um, there's just the gospels for the empty tomb. I guess you're counting them as multiple independant sources? Anyway unless you can demonstate to me where he's not fair with data other than just saying it I don't think you're going to demonstrate anything to me.

You've made it clear you don't WANT to believe, saying that Paulogia's cases are convincing for people who are ALREADY skeptical. If you WANT to be skeptical, it means you have a bias against Christianity.

Why might a person have a bias against Christianity?

What it boils down to is not wanting to be accountable to God. Atheists are perpetual naysayers. They have no evidence that atheism is true. They only have shoot-down arguments against these things.

 

[Discussion]

I wish I could, as I said it is a very personal journey. Though here are a few things that meant something to me.

People: Don't let Christians put you off from Christianity. (You can find difficult people in all areas.) If someone is just arguing with you, with no clear motive besides "winning", move on. You can find some very thoughtful people also, these are the ones who should help guide you.
The Bible: Before I was a Christian the only book that meant anything to me was "Ecclesiastes" from the old testament. Everyone would always recommend books from the New Testament, but I wasn't ready for that personally. Besides if you read Ecclesiastes you will see where all those famous sayings come from.
Other sources: I found Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis to be very informative. Though by the time I read it, I was already halfway Christian.
I should also mention before I even considered Christianity I had studied other philosophies and for a while considered myself a Taoist. For some reason for me Christianity was the last thing I considered.

Most importantly just keep doing what you are doing. Asking questions with an open mind.

Thanks so much you seem a lovely person. I would say right now my philosophical position is something like this:

Domain	Your View
Metaethics	Moral nihilist (emotivist)
Free Will	Compatibilist
Philosophy of Mind	Physicalist
Epistemology	Critical rationalist

 

[Discussion]

You've made it clear you don't WANT to believe, saying that Paulogia's cases are convincing for people who are ALREADY skeptical. If you WANT to be skeptical, it means you have a bias against Christianity.

Why might a person have a bias against Christianity?

What it boils down to is not wanting to be accountable to God. Atheists are perpetual naysayers. They have no evidence that atheism is true. They only have shoot-down arguments against these things.

View attachment 364736

Asking for evidence atheism is true doesn't really make sense; we all (mostly) agree the natural world exists and as such so do physical things. So far this is a naturalistic frame work, then on top of this positing God(s) and the supernatural is an unnecessary claim which needs to be defended rather than the other way round, God existing is a claim which requires evidence while the neutral position is that he does not.

For example if I told you I had a dragon in my aunts field in Ireland if you think about it you can't give evidence its not there, you'd just have to say that I'd given you no reason to think it is there in the first place. You can't give evidence that dragons don't exist (they have been reported many times in ancient stories) but no doubt you don't believe in them, yet this is not an irrational position.

 

[All Becomes New]

Asking for evidence atheism is true doesn't really make sense; we all (mostly) agree the natural world exists and as such so do physical things. So far this is a naturalistic frame work, then on top of this positing God(s) and the supernatural is an unnecessary claim which needs to be defended rather than the other way round, God existing is a claim which requires evidence while the neutral position is that he does not.

For example if I told you I had a dragon in my aunts field in Ireland if you think about it you can't give evidence its not there, you'd just have to say that I'd given you no reason to think it is there in the first place. You can't give evidence that dragons don't exist (they have been reported many times in ancient stories) but no doubt you don't believe in them, yet this is not an irrational position.

Why is there something rather than nothing? That is a basic question that atheists do not have an answer for. The burden of proof for why there is something rather than nothing is for atheists to demonstrate, which they cannot do.

 

[Discussion]

Why is there something rather than nothing? That is a basic question that atheists do not have an answer for. The burden of proof for why there is something rather than nothing is for atheists to demonstrate, which they cannot do.

I do not know why, why does God exist? This is a question no Christian can answer other than just saying he is necessary in which case sure that's my answer to your question to.

Oh also God of the gaps isn't a good argument as I'm sure you've heard.

 

[All Becomes New]

I do not know why, why does God exist? This is a question no Christian can answer other than just saying he is necessary in which case sure that's my answer to your question to.

Oh also God of the gaps isn't a good argument as I'm sure you've heard.

The universe is not necessary.

 

[All Becomes New]

I am at present an agnostic who is seeking Christ

You are not seeking Christ. That is a lie.

 

[Discussion]

The universe is not necessary.

Oh really? Why not? And why is God?

 

[All Becomes New]

Oh really? Why not? And why is God?

The universe is contingent. God is not.

 

[Discussion]

You are not seeking Christ. That is a lie.

Not very nice of you, but yes I am you're arguments are just very flawed and I'm hoping someone will have good ones.

 

[All Becomes New]

Not very nice of you, but yes I am you're arguments are just very flawed and I'm hoping someone will have good ones.

There are plenty of good ones. You admit that Paulogias' arguments are convincing to skeptics. They are not convincing to people who believe. As such, you don't want it to be true. If you did, you would not affirm second-rate arguments made for skeptics.