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.
Very keen observation.
Why assume you ask?
Who said I was assuming?
I am simply giving some of the reasons why the unbelieving continued in unbelief even after having witnessed signs and wonders done by Jesus. It is in the scripture. It is plain to see. Does not Jesus ask:
"How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"
Muhammad's ascension is also recorded in Scripture, and yet you are still not a Muslim? Is it because of your pride and desire for glory among men? The Quran says that you are without excuse, Jeremy.
Not at all. I am saying that is should not be on the top of that list.You are trying to paint over personal experience with broad brush strokes with black paint in an attempt to erase it completely from the list of resources we have for ascertaining the veracity of a truth claim.
What I am saying is that personal experience is demonstrably unreliable, and second-hand and anonymous reports of personal experience even more so.What you are trying to do in essence is say that unless a claim can be demonstrated to be true to a lot of people (how large this number must be and why it must be this specific number you have yet to even begin to explain, but I digress) then we cannot trust the claim.
Do you have the names and addresses for any of these individuals? No?The glaring hole in your logic is due to your failure to account for the fact that the New Testament gives us the account of God raising Jesus from the dead, not in some dark corner away from the rest of humanity, but rather, from the very place He was buried. This was in Jerusalem, on the Sunday following His crucifixion, in a city still bustling with literally hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world. Does not the scripture say that Jesus later appeared to hundreds who beheld Him before ascending into heaven?
That I reject it is evidence for its veracity? In what universe is that?Come on Davian, I think you have read enough of the New Testament to know that, as Paul stated to King Agrippa, this thing was not done in a corner. Paul appealed to King Agrippa's knowledge of the events in question when he says: "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner."
I have seen several people resort to being total historical skeptics just so they can label the accounts of the New Testament authors as "unreliable". If historical skepticism is how you avoid coming to terms with what they wrote, then I would say that is just one more piece of evidence for the veracity of their testimony.
But that is what you did.I never said you should believe Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible says so.
Stories of evidence is not evidence. This is apologetics, and you will have this thread locked in short order.I would appeal to evidence such as the empty tomb, accounts of Jesus' post mortem appearances to hundreds, and the disciple's sudden conviction that Jesus was alive as a few lines of evidence for starters.
Why are they all not convinced?These three lines of evidence are agreed upon by virtually all New Testament scholars.
God works in mysterious ways.
When you have doubts or fear something, sometimes you read something that makes you believe it will be alright.
I am not a Muslim because I am a Christian. I am a Christian because God's prevenient grace drew me to Himself and I repented and believed and trusted in Jesus Christ for the remission of my sins and now have a relationship with God wherein my knowledge of God grows day by day.
Your point is not lost on me. It is that everything I say can be said by someone else from another religion. But you are wrong. For a Muslim cannot say that they have placed their hope and trust in Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. In fact no one but a Christian can say that. No one but a Christian can say that God became flesh and dwelt among men and lived a sinless life and died so that we might have life eternal.
Malcolm Muggeridge speaks on this very thing when he says:
"Plenty of great teachers, mystics, martyrs and saints have made their appearance at different times in the world, and lived lives and spoken words full of grace and truth, for which we have every reason to be grateful. Of none of them, however, has the claim been made, and accepted, that they were Incarnate God. In the case of Jesus alone the belief has persisted that when he came into the world God deigned to take on the likeness of a man in order that thenceforth men might be encouraged to aspire after the likeness of God; reaching out from their mortality to His immortality, from their imperfection to His perfection."
Seeing as your personal thread has suffered the wrath of mod, I will respond to this post that I referred to earlier.Then you'd be the one desensitized to stings.
Seeing as your personal thread has suffered the wrath of mod, I will respond to this post that I referred to earlier.
You are under no obligation to respond to any posts; however, in the context of a philosophy forum, I would like to think that one should be prepared to respond to requests for justification for comments one makes within the forum, if one expects the same from others. The alternative would be... hypocritical. Again, YMMV.
I infer from this post that you are saying that I am receiving "stings" from "truths" that I am stumbling over, and that I am somehow desensitized to them.
Good gravy. No.Do you think this applies with every single post? That a person should respond to every single post solicited of him, or else he's hypocritical?
Can you give me the post that says this much? I don't remember where it's from.
If it is agreed that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, then where was all the matter that makes up the universe prior to the Big Bang?Here's the evidence I find most convincing that God exists.
Our universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is accepted by nearly all scientists.
That's a false dichotomy. Either there is an eternal multiverse or there is not an eternal multiverse would be a true dichotomy. Either there is a succession of universes or there is not a succession of universes is a true dichotomy. Saying if it wasn't 'A' means it was God is only a true dichotomy if "God" = anything that isn't 'A'.If the universe had a beginning, either there is an eternal multiverse or succession of universes, or God created it.
Why would that be true?To say it just happened without a cause I see as highly irrational, but for sake of argument I'll pretend it is possible.
The multiverse or succession of universes means there have been an actual infinite number of universes. That raises some logical difficulties. It also means everything happening now has already happened an infinite number of times.
Once again, that's a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy would be either God made it or no god made it - assuming it was made. That is unless "God" = anything other than an extremely unlikely coincidence.Also, the second law of thermodynamics has to be 100% false on that ultimate level. I don't say it's impossible, but it's a pretty huge concept.
We have four options then. If none of them have any observational evidence and are equally good at explaining the universe, it is equally rational to favor any of them.
Life had a beginning. Either God made it, or an extremely unlikely coincidence did. (panspermia, etc, just pushes the problem back a step.)
Why assume it was a god if you don't know?Life arising from nonlife is totally unobserved, so not more probable than God.
Think about where each human being is at this precise moment. What do you think the chances were of every human being being in those precise locations at this moment was? It's an almost inconceivably high improbability - but it's true. So, yes, unlikely coincidences do occur all the time.Humans are wired to want to know what is ultimately true, to desire meaning, beauty, and other things that are not important to survival and reproduction. It's to be expected that God would design these qualities, but if they evolved naturally that is another unlikely coincidence.
It sounds like you're using "God" in lieu for everything you don't know. Isn't it easier to just admit you don't know? Or do you wish to commit the fallacious argument of argument from ignorance - "I don't know what did it, so therefore God did it".One hypothesis, God, explains several diverse phenomena that require multiple hypotheses to explain without God, and which don't do as well. Thus God is the most probable explanation for the universe, life, and the human psychology, and it is more rational to be a theist than an atheist.
Good gravy. No.
Again. You are under no obligation to respond to any posts; however, in the context of a philosophy forum, I would like to think that one should be prepared to respond to requests for justification for comments one makes within the forum, if one expects the same from others.
You said that, here.
That would be a different topic. I do not see why one must respond to every post, and that is not what I am saying.Okay, then hence my appeal to drawing the line. At what point -- using what criteria to determine this point -- is a person justified in not responding to every post?
I avoid the word 'truth', as I often seen the word to be synonymous with "my religious opinion".Thanks.
My comment about desensitization means you've experienced stings enough in your search for truth that they don't hurt any more, presumably because of your commitment to truth.
I do definitely experience 'stings' - but I do not avoid them, even with those understandable emotional attachments that we all have. I consider them the price of not leaving stones unturned (why, hello, nihilism!).Of course, on a second reading it appears that you say you don't experience stings -- i.e., don't have an emotional attachment to some degree to each of your beliefs, which people in general (myself included) have, and I would say is biologically sound as such.
We have four options then. If none of them have any observational evidence and are equally good at explaining the universe, it is equally rational to favor any of them.
Life had a beginning. Either God made it, or an extremely unlikely coincidence did. (panspermia, etc, just pushes the problem back a step.)
Life arising from nonlife is totally unobserved, so not more probable than God.
Humans are wired to want to know what is ultimately true, to desire meaning, beauty, and other things that are not important to survival and reproduction. It's to be expected that God would design these qualities, but if they evolved naturally that is another unlikely coincidence.
One hypothesis, God, explains several diverse phenomena that require multiple hypotheses to explain without God, and which don't do as well. Thus God is the most probable explanation for the universe, life, and the human psychology, and it is more rational to be a theist than an atheist.
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?