What's leads you to believe what you believe?

[djj6835]

I have a couple questions for anyone who believes in some religion.

The first is, other than your upbringing, what leads you to follow the religion you follow. I think it is safe to say that if you were raised as a Christian, and believe in god/creationism, then you probably still believe in Christianity. Why is this? If one religion was truly correct, wouldn't the majority of the population eventually end up following that same religion? Considering that the only evidence for any one religion is a book/scriptures why does one religion seem credible to you and others don't.

My second question is this. If you were born and raised completely cutoff from the rest of society, and then presented with all the various religions, do you think you would still believe the same thing you believe today. This includes things like scientology. Would the religion containing burning bushes, a virgin birth, the parting of a sea, and a mortal man walking on water seem completely credible while the one regarding aliens and hydrogen bombs seem completely ridiculous. Keep in mind you would have no previous bias to influence your decision, just the "facts".

If you would still believe the same thing and not believe any of the other religions I'm curious as to why.

[TheQ]

Funny thing is, it seems to me people can believe anything.

So you're right, what makes Christianity "right"?

Asumming there is only 1 'real' God, why don't you sincerely ask him if he exists? Put ALL religion aside. And talk to the 'real' God.

I used to not like sushi, until I thought it was trendy. I believed it should taste good, and now it does.

Why not assume all relgion is incorrect, and make 1 assumption. Assume there is one God greater than the rest, who is a nice guy, and talk to him. The bible isn't required, because He should tell you Himself, what is true and what isn't. He can tell you what is right and wrong.

See my reply to David Skansky's post "The Biggest Miracle"

And yes, after I finsh reading the Bible, I want to step back and examine other regions from my best unbiased view.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering that the only evidence for any one religion is a book/scriptures

[/ QUOTE ]
You are basing your question off a false asumption as this is not true for the existence of God in general or for Christianity.

[Lestat]

Ok. Maybe I'm finaly about to learn something here.

Without referring to any book or scripture, please tell me what "evidence" there is that proves the existence of a God? I missed it.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. Maybe I'm finaly about to learn something here.

Without referring to any book or scripture, please tell me what "evidence" there is that proves the existence of a God? I missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, I didn't say "proves". The OP said that the only evidence was a book, and that is not true. There is plenty of evidence that makes belief in God reasonable.

This has been discussed several times in other threads, but I have yet to hear a sufficient counter-argument that would make me believe otherwise.

One example of such evidence is as follows:

There are only three possibilities for the existence of the universe. (A fourth being that it's all an illusion, but this view isn't widely held).

1. The universe has always existed.
2. The universe created itself.
3. The universe was created.

As for #1, nuclear fusion tells us that this cannot be. Our universe does not contain an infinite amount of hydrogen, and thus, it must have had a beginning.

This leads us to option #2. There are no other examples under our laws of physics where something has come from nothing, especially not on such a large scale.

Therefore, the creation of the universe must have occurred from outside our laws of physics. This leaves #3.

Again, there are counter-arguments to this. Personally, though, I find them so far-fetched that they require more faith to believe than God.

It's not 100% proof, but contrary to the OP, this is reasonable evidence in the existence of God.

I am seriously cracking up over here... This is friggin funny!!

[ QUOTE ]
Funny thing is, it seems to me people can believe anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh...

[ QUOTE ]
Asumming there is only 1 'real' God,

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming, indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
Why not assume all relgion is incorrect, and make 1 assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

The one you made, I suppose?

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, after I finsh reading the Bible, I want to step back and examine other regions from my best unbiased view.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have done that before reading the Bible. You started out biased toward Christianity. Then, you will read the Bible, and go through the Bible-study guides you posted in another thread. I'm guessing after that, you'll be even MORE biased.

[ QUOTE ]
1. The universe has always existed.
2. The universe created itself.
3. The universe was created.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a combo between #1 & #3. If by "universe", you mean our observable 4-dimensional (that we know of) "universe", then current understanding would say it could not have always existed. However, a multi-verse, a higher-level universe *could* have always existed. This universe need not be intelligent.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, though, I find them so far-fetched that they require more faith to believe than God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that beliving that a supreme intelligent being created us in this vast universe, for some cosmic eternal test, and became a human, and then died & resurrected to save us from eternal hell is MUCH less believable than that there is a "universe" beyond our perceivable universe that we have not yet detected.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not 100% proof, but contrary to the OP, this is reasonable evidence in the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's "argumentum ad ignorantiam" if I've ever seen it. I'll summarize your evidence: "We don't know how or where our universe came from... therefore, the Christian God of the Bible exists."

[Lestat]

*If our universe was created, then it must have been created outside our universe. This could've been caused by God or something else. There is no reason to think that God is more likely than something else. If there IS a reason, please explain.

*If you have a problem with the universe as having always existed or creating itself, then it would logically follow you should run into the same problem with God always having existed or creating Himself. If your logic differs, please explain.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll summarize your evidence: "We don't know how or where our universe came from... therefore, the Christian God of the Bible exists."

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say "Christian God of the Bible" anywhere in my post? I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I was simply indicating the evidence for a Creator.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a combo between #1 & #3. If by "universe", you mean our observable 4-dimensional (that we know of) "universe", then current understanding would say it could not have always existed. However, a multi-verse, a higher-level universe *could* have always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely zero evidence for this.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
*If you have a problem with the universe as having always existed or creating itself, then it would logically follow you should run into the same problem with God always having existed or creating Himself. If your logic differs, please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with our universe always existing because of the concept of nuclear fusion. Science tells us that the universe had a beginning.

God, on the other hand, is not bound by our laws of physics. As our creator, he, by definition, exists outside our dimensional universe. Therefore, there is no conflict in saying that He has always been here.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*If you have a problem with the universe as having always existed or creating itself, then it would logically follow you should run into the same problem with God always having existed or creating Himself. If your logic differs, please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with our universe always existing because of the concept of nuclear fusion. Science tells us that the universe had a beginning.

God, on the other hand, is not bound by our laws of physics. As our creator, he, by definition, exists outside our dimensional universe. Therefore, there is no conflict in saying that He has always been here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The universe may indeed have a beginning, but that does not strengthen the argument for a god.

[David Sklansky]

"It's not 100% proof, but contrary to the OP, this is reasonable evidence in the existence of God."

Even if your argument is correct it is only evidence for any type of creator. For instance a sixth dimensional kid playing with his chemistry set. This whole religion debate started a long time ago when I claimed that anyone who believed that the specifics of their religion was a favorite to be true (or even only a small underdog) because of the evidence, is basically stupid and obviously wrong. Wrong that is, that the evidence actually points to that highish probability.

Even many, if not most, theologians do not disagree with that.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if your argument is correct it is only evidence for any type of creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that, and all I was pointing out is that it is reasonable that the universe was created by some outside being. There is other evidence that makes the God of the Bible likely to be that creator, but the first step is realizing that we were created by something.

Regardless, though, did you just call me stupid?

[David Sklansky]

"Regardless, though, did you just call me stupid?"

Only if your contention is that the evidence by itself, should persuade expert evidence evaluators, that your specific religious beliefs are more (or almost as) likely to be true than all the other religious beliefs and non beliefs combined.

I don't think that you actually believe that. BluffThis for instance, doesn't. Those who do are in the same boat as the people who watched the OJ trial and think it showed he was probably innocent. Use whatever adjectives for that you want.

[hmkpoker]

This is something for physicists to debate.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
"Regardless, though, did you just call me stupid?"

Only if your contention is that the evidence by itself, should persuade expert evidence evaluators, that your specific religious beliefs are more (or almost as) likely to be true than all the other religious beliefs and non beliefs combined.

I don't think that you actually believe that. BluffThis for instance, doesn't. Those who do are in the same boat as the people who watched the OJ trial and think it showed he was probably innocent. Use whatever adjectives for that you want.

[/ QUOTE ]
Call it what you want, but I do believe that. I believe based on the available evidence that Christianity is more likely to be true than any other religion out there. I believe those who are non-Christians have not evaluated the evidence thoroughly or objectively, not that I expect that to happen. The Bible says that all will not believe, narrow is that gate, etc.

The Bible is powerful. I can name several people who have set out with the intention of disproving the New Testament, only to become Christians. When this happens, the person usually becomes a very vocal proponent of Christianity. On the other hand, I can't name anyone who has successfully disproven (or reasonably disproven) the New Testament. Sure, there are those who have fallen away from Christ. Many such are posters here. Listen to their reasons for leaving, though. You'll see my point.

There is an unseen spirit-ghost that moves through me and has given me the power to see the truth about my creator. This "holy ghost" is the source of belief. If this "holy ghost" hasn't moved through you, that just means that god probably loves me more. Sucks to be you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*If you have a problem with the universe as having always existed or creating itself, then it would logically follow you should run into the same problem with God always having existed or creating Himself. If your logic differs, please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have a problem with our universe always existing because of the concept of nuclear fusion. Science tells us that the universe had a beginning.

God, on the other hand, is not bound by our laws of physics. As our creator, he, by definition, exists outside our dimensional universe. Therefore, there is no conflict in saying that He has always been here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The laws of physics as we know them break down at the "beginning" of the universe anyway.

You've stated two facts...

1. We don't know how the universe was created.
2. You believe in a God that can do things that are not bound by the laws of phsyics.

So what? These facts do not logically suggest that God has anything to do with the creation of the universe.

Edit: This is a general post.. not in contradiction to the post I have replied to.

Whenever there is a thread like this it always strikes me that religious posters consistently make 1 huge error in reasoning. It is either anthropomorphism or ego-something (I havent done any philosophy, but I'm sure there is a term for failing to recognise you are restricted by only having your point of view)

If you say the universe must have been created as though by magic why attribute human qualities to it?

I am as atheisitic as anyone (via a high IQ and objective reasoning of 'evidence') but am open to the idea that the start of the universe may have involved magical physics we cannot even imagine. I think this is why Stephen Hawking refers to 'God'.

The fact is we don't know what happened, but filling the void with a human personality is a huge error in reasoning.

Intelligent objective posters should say "we dont know" and be happy with the void. Filling it with silly ideas gets us (humans) nowhere. Assuming a person(ality) created us is only equally as sensible as the chicken overlord mentioned in a few other posts. And it is not even as entertaining.

Imagine you are passed a tea chest closed with a padlock. You have no further information.

Does it probably contain a midget?

[ QUOTE ]
Whenever there is a thread like this it always strikes me that religious posters consistently make 1 huge error in reasoning. It is either anthropomorphism or ego-something (I havent done any philosophy, but I'm sure there is a term for failing to recognise you are restricted by only having your point of view)

If you say the universe must have been created as though by magic why attribute human qualities to it?

I am as atheisitic as anyone (via a high IQ and objective reasoning of 'evidence') but am open to the idea that the start of the universe may have involved magical physics we cannot even imagine. I think this is why Stephen Hawking refers to 'God'.

The fact is we don't know what happened, but filling the void with a human personality is a huge error in reasoning.

Intelligent objective posters should say "we dont know" and be happy with the void. Filling it with silly ideas gets us (humans) nowhere. Assuming a person(ality) created us is only equally as sensible as the chicken overlord mentioned in a few other posts. And it is not even as entertaining.

Imagine you are passed a tea chest closed with a padlock. You have no further information.

Does it probably contain a midget?

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

(Are the last 3 sentences copyrighted? If not, I'd like to use them.)

Lol feel free...:)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: This is a general post.. not in contradiction to the post I have replied to.

Whenever there is a thread like this it always strikes me that religious posters consistently make 1 huge error in reasoning. It is either anthropomorphism or ego-something (I havent done any philosophy, but I'm sure there is a term for failing to recognise you are restricted by only having your point of view)

If you say the universe must have been created as though by magic why attribute human qualities to it?

I am as atheisitic as anyone (via a high IQ and objective reasoning of 'evidence') but am open to the idea that the start of the universe may have involved magical physics we cannot even imagine. I think this is why Stephen Hawking refers to 'God'.

The fact is we don't know what happened, but filling the void with a human personality is a huge error in reasoning.

Intelligent objective posters should say "we dont know" and be happy with the void. Filling it with silly ideas gets us (humans) nowhere. Assuming a person(ality) created us is only equally as sensible as the chicken overlord mentioned in a few other posts. And it is not even as entertaining.

Imagine you are passed a tea chest closed with a padlock. You have no further information.

Does it probably contain a midget?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not attaching "human" qualities to anything. The only thing I've presented in this thread is evidence that the universe was created by something from outside dimensions. While most would logically assume our creator to be God, I have not said that. I have only shown it reasonable to believe that the universe was created by something rather than the other two alternatives.

Filling the void of which you speak can be done with numerous other reasonable evidence that supports belief in the Bible. Nobody is jumping from "we were created by something" to "the God of the Bible is true". It's more a combination of evidence, like "it is reasonable that we were created by something" and "it is reasonable that the Bible is true" and "it is reasonable that the universe was designed" and "it is reasonable that the Resurrection is true". Etc, Etc.

And by the way, I don't believe intelligent posters should "be happy with the void". When "the void" contains the possibility of spending eternity in the fires of Hell, the intelligent poster makes an attempt to determine whether or not that threat is credible.

Ok, I think this is what we would agree, via your earlier logic:

The universe was created by something.

We must now continue, without attaching a personality to the events unless there is a good reason to do so. The fact that religion is popular is not a good reason.

"Something" could happen to be exactly the Christian God, but when phrased in that way it strikes me how unlikely and counter-intuitive that would be.

Indeed, as often stated on this forum, it is no more likely that the Christian God is the answer than any other, including the one I just made up and am telling you you will go to my hell if you don't believe in him.

Most of your 'evidence' so far only points to the statement in bold at the top of my post.

Most scientific problems of this nature in the past began with a religious answer and then 'science' found out the real answer. e.g. do you still think lightning is created by God, or by a build up of charge in clouds? Do you think you sneeze to expel evil spirits, or because something irritated nerves in your nose?

Don't you think that the most likely result is that will eventually happen here too?

[Lestat]

Haven't done philosophy, eh? You're good!

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed, as often stated on this forum, it is no more likely that the Christian God is the answer than any other

[/ QUOTE ]
Not true. You have to consider all of the available evidence before you can make that claim, and I'm fairly convinced that you have not done that.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of your 'evidence' so far only points to the statement in bold at the top of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't presented evidence for anything else in this thread. What is your point?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Most scientific problems of this nature in the past began with a religious answer and then 'science' found out the real answer. e.g. do you still think lightning is created by God, or by a build up of charge in clouds? Do you think you sneeze to expel evil spirits, or because something irritated nerves in your nose?

Don't you think that the most likely result is that will eventually happen here too?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a difference. Lightening and sneezing are two things that occur within our laws of physics. The creation of the universe did not.

I think the point is that there is no other evidence.

Therefore all the far fetched options are equally likely.

If there was any evidence there would be far fewer intelligent atheists.

Please link us to details of the evidence so we can be saved.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most scientific problems of this nature in the past began with a religious answer and then 'science' found out the real answer. e.g. do you still think lightning is created by God, or by a build up of charge in clouds? Do you think you sneeze to expel evil spirits, or because something irritated nerves in your nose?

Don't you think that the most likely result is that will eventually happen here too?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a difference. Lightening and sneezing are two things that occur within our laws of physics. The creation of the universe did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, but they werent within understood laws at the time. Don't you think its likely that the beginning of the universe will come under the new laws and understandings we create in the future.

Its almost as though you are implying our current understanding of our boundaries is as far as we can go. I.e. we know everything "within" our universe??

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Its almost as though you are implying our current understanding of our boundaries is as far as we can go. I.e. we know everything "within" our universe??

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I certainly don't believe that at all. There is tons more to discover from science, and in that aspect, our learning will never stop. And honestly, this abundance of future knowledge is more likely to be true if God exists than if He doesn't.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point is that there is no other evidence.

Therefore all the far fetched options are equally likely.

If there was any evidence there would be far fewer intelligent atheists.

Please link us to details of the evidence so we can be saved.

[/ QUOTE ]
No evidence for what? That Jesus existed? That the Resurrection took place? That the universe was designed? That the Bible is true?

There is reasonable evidence for all of this. Where would you like to start?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
logically assume

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Start on any one of those points!

Just make sure you don't make any false assumptions in the process.

Do you really believe we speak different languages because humans built a tower that was so large that an omnipotent God became insecure and jealous?

That was one of the silliest things in the Bible, is it correct? Can I also have a Hebrew slave for 7 years? Is there any evidence the reserection happened other than 300 years later someone told someone else that it happened?

Please give me anything to go on to continue...

[Lestat]

I believe the point is that if this discussion were taking place before science understood what creates lightning, you most likely would be using the same faulty premise to attribute lightning to God as you are now with the creation of the universe.

A faulty premise is a faulty premise. It clearly would've been faulty with respect to lightning, and it's just as faulty when it comes to the creation of the universe.

[Lestat]

I'm done posting on this subject. In addition to you having a better understanding than I do, you articulate much better than me. I'll just sit back and read your posts from now on.

[tolbiny]

"That the Resurrection took place?"

Start here

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the point is that if this discussion were taking place before science understood what creates lightning, you most likely would be using the same faulty premise to attribute lightning to God as you are now with the creation of the universe.

A faulty premise is a faulty premise. It clearly would've been faulty with respect to lightning, and it's just as faulty when it comes to the creation of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Will you please point out my "faulty premise"? From your comment, I don't think you've read the entire thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Will you please point out my "faulty premise"? From your comment, I don't think you've read the entire thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is your faulty premise: "Lightening and sneezing are two things that occur within our laws of physics. The creation of the universe did not."

Obviously, lightning was not within the known laws of physics 200 years ago, so by your logic it is supernatural best explained as an act of God. Of course, now we know how lightning works, just like one day we may know the laws of physics applicable to the big bang. Your premise is that the big bang is impossible to ever be explained by science. This is a faulty premise.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
logically assume

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
log-i-cal: 2 : capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion <a logical thinker>

as-sume: 5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
logically assume

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
log-i-cal: 2 : capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion <a logical thinker>

as-sume: 5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE

[/ QUOTE ]

You should re-read your own definitions you posted. "orderly cogent fashion" and "take as granted" are generally incompatible in reasonable debate.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will you please point out my "faulty premise"? From your comment, I don't think you've read the entire thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is your faulty premise: "Lightening and sneezing are two things that occur within our laws of physics. The creation of the universe did not."

Obviously, lightning was not within the known laws of physics 200 years ago, so by your logic it is supernatural best explained as an act of God. Of course, now we know how lightning works, just like one day we may know the laws of physics applicable to the big bang. Your premise is that the big bang is impossible to ever be explained by science. This is a faulty premise.

[/ QUOTE ]
A thousand years ago, lightning adhered to the same laws of physics that it does now, whether or not science knew why. Furthermore, a creator would have to come from somewhere beyond our physical dimensions.

As I said in my first post in this thread, there are only two other alternatives to the universe being created by an outside being. The big bang theory fits into the category of the universe always existing, and the concept of nuclear fusion tells us why this cannot be.

There is no faulty premise here. I never said, nor do I believe, that seemingly supernatural events can only be explained by "acts of God."

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
logically assume

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
log-i-cal: 2 : capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion <a logical thinker>

as-sume: 5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE

[/ QUOTE ]

You should re-read your own definitions you posted. "orderly cogent fashion" and "take as granted" are generally incompatible in reasonable debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
In any problem solving discussion, it is sometimes necessary to make assumptions. Sometimes, those assumptions are logical. Sometimes, they aren't.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

No offense, but your level of denseness is incredible if you don't see the silliness of your reasoning:

[ QUOTE ]
A thousand years ago, lightning adhered to the same laws of physics that it does now, whether or not science knew why.
...
The big bang theory fits into the category of the universe always existing, and the concept of nuclear fusion tells us why this cannot be.
...
There is no faulty premise here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, because science doesn't explain your fusion issue yet, then the big bang theory is nonsensical. And as evidence, you point out that we didn't understand lightening at one point, but were able to figure it out eventually. Nice one. Couldn't have done a better job myself of refuting your arguments.

Logical deduction is so much easier when you assume the conclusions.

** Recall your use of the terms: "the universe was created by something from outside dimensions. While most would logically assume our creator to be God" --- how is that a logical assumption from the premise that the universe was created by something? Where is the reasoning? Or am I wrong that this "assumption" jumps straight to the conclusion?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any evidence the reserection happened other than 300 years later someone told someone else that it happened?


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to start with the Resurrection because you mentioned this and because another poster requested it.

First of all, do you really believe that the only evidence for the Resurrection surfaced 300 years after it happened. The first century Christian church was organized, the New Testament written, and the Christian faith flourishing within decades of the alleged event.

As far as reasonable evidence is concerned, consider the following points:

1. The discovery of the empty tomb was made by women. At the time, women weren't given standing in society as legal witnesses. If the story was made up, why base it on the testimony of a woman?

2. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. Peter even denied knowing Him three separate times. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?

3. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

4. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

5. Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph, who Mark describes as "a prominent member of the Council". It would have been destructive for the writers to invent a man of such prominence, name him specifically, and designate the tomb site, since eyewitnesses would have easily discredited the author's fallacious claims.

6. Jewish and Roman sources both testify to an empty tomb. Matthew 28:12 13 specifically states that the chief priests invented the story that the disciples stole the body. There would be no need for this fabrication if the tomb had not been empty. Opponents of the Resurrection must account for this. If the tomb had not been empty, the preaching of the Apostles would not have lasted one day. All the Jewish authorities needed to do to put an end to Christianity was to produce the body of Jesus.

7. Along with the empty tomb is the fact that the corpse of Jesus was never found. Not one historical record from the first or second century is written attacking the factuality of the empty tomb or claiming discovery of the corpse.

8. The Apostles began preaching the Resurrection in Jerusalem. This is significant since this is the very city in which Jesus was crucified. This was the most hostile city in which to preach. Furthermore, all the evidence was there for everyone to investigate. Legends take root in foreign lands or centuries after the event. Discrediting such legends is difficult since the facts are hard to verify. However, in this case the preaching occurs in the city of the event immediately after it occurred. Every possible fact could have been investigated thoroughly.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense, but your level of denseness is incredible if you don't see the silliness of your reasoning:

[ QUOTE ]
A thousand years ago, lightning adhered to the same laws of physics that it does now, whether or not science knew why.
...
The big bang theory fits into the category of the universe always existing, and the concept of nuclear fusion tells us why this cannot be.
...
There is no faulty premise here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, because science doesn't explain your fusion issue yet, then the big bang theory is nonsensical. And as evidence, you point out that we didn't understand lightening at one point, but were able to figure it out eventually. Nice one. Couldn't have done a better job myself of refuting your arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol. Unbelievable.

A thousand years ago, lightning was simply unexplainable. We didn't know what causes it.

Nuclear fusion scientifically rules out the possibility of the universe having always existed.

Here's the difference: In the future, science might discover something that overturns the concept of nuclear fusion. It would have to do exactly that, however: OVERTURN a known concept rather than just discover a new one. That's the difference.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No offense, but your level of denseness is incredible if you don't see the silliness of your reasoning:

[ QUOTE ]
A thousand years ago, lightning adhered to the same laws of physics that it does now, whether or not science knew why.
...
The big bang theory fits into the category of the universe always existing, and the concept of nuclear fusion tells us why this cannot be.
...
There is no faulty premise here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, because science doesn't explain your fusion issue yet, then the big bang theory is nonsensical. And as evidence, you point out that we didn't understand lightening at one point, but were able to figure it out eventually. Nice one. Couldn't have done a better job myself of refuting your arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol. Unbelievable.

A thousand years ago, lightning was simply unexplainable. We didn't know what causes it.

Nuclear fusion scientifically rules out the possibility of the universe having always existed.

Here's the difference: In the future, science might discover something that overturns the concept of nuclear fusion. It would have to do exactly that, however: OVERTURN a known concept rather than just discover a new one. That's the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how many "known" concepts were overturned in the 20th century for universal conditions? Oh yeah, just about all of them.

Oh and P.S., the physics inside a black hole or at the start of the big bang are not completely known (and if they were theorized completely, there is no current way to verify them completely, thus they're never "known" completely). Seriously, the more you post, the worse your arguments become. You are saying that the universe couldn't have always existed because there isn't enough hydrogen to burn infinitely. There are plenty of theories which negate such a limited, narrow view (superstring, other higher dimensional causes, a collapsing/expanding cycle, etc.). You may not still believe the world is flat, but you're not that much further along based on your type of reasoning.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of theories which negate such a limited, narrow view (superstring, other higher dimensional causes, a collapsing/expanding cycle, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]
None of which can be proven. Most of which require more "faith" than believing in a Creator.

EDIT: I take that back. There is a lot we don't know scientifically. One of those theories might be correct. It would still not rule out a Creator if one of those theories was the way it happened. It would just tell us more about God. The key point in all of this is that there is other evidence outside of what is presented in this thread that makes a Creator likely. What is presented in this thread just compliments additional evidence. Additionally, nothing you have said disproves the notion of a Creator.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of theories which negate such a limited, narrow view (superstring, other higher dimensional causes, a collapsing/expanding cycle, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]
None of which can be proven. Most of which require more "faith" than believing in a Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of them claim to be the way, the truth, and the life, nor condemn you to eternal hell if you don't accept them as is.

Point is, you claimed that the universe must have started from an outside "being" using hydrogen fusion as the thrust of your argument. That argument fails on its own as there are plenty of theories which do NOT require your assumption.

[Lestat]

I do see what you're saying. I'll also add that that you're doing an excellent job of wiggling away every time you're backed into a corner. You're good! And I'm sure it will take a better debater than I, to finally nail you down.

The problem is that you're having an incredibly hard time getting past your own 20/20 hindsight.

Put yourself in a time before we knew the causes of sneezing and lightning. The universe and the big bang weren't even concepts yet. So you are unable to use these to explain why God must exist. What would you do?

You would no doubt resort to using whatever unexplained events were available at the time (such as sneezing and lightning), as the same faulty premise for your reasoning of why God must exist.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I do see what you're saying. I'll also add that that you're doing an excellent job of wiggling away every time you're backed into a corner. You're good! And I'm sure it will take a better debater than I, to finally nail you down.

The problem is that you're having an incredibly hard time getting past your own 20/20 hindsight.

Put yourself in a time before we knew the causes of sneezing and lightning. The universe and the big bang weren't even concepts yet. So you are unable to use these to explain why God must exist. What would you do?

You would no doubt use whatever unexplained events were available (such as sneezing and lightning), as the same faulty premise for your reasoning of why God must exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not wiggling. I'm just explaining and clarifying. The more we learn about science, the more we learn about God. Science and the Bible are 100% compatible.

[David Sklansky]

"Call it what you want, but I do believe that. I believe based on the available evidence that Christianity is more likely to be true than any other religion out there. I believe those who are non-Christians have not evaluated the evidence thoroughly or objectively, not that I expect that to happen."

Are you including not just the other religions out there but also religions that don't have a name that have yet to be defined, or theories like deism and theories like no god at all? If you still think an unemotional, computer like evidence evaluater, would say that Christianity is more likely to be correct than all its alternatives, than you are indeed as stupid as thoose who would say the same thing about OJs innocence.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
"Call it what you want, but I do believe that. I believe based on the available evidence that Christianity is more likely to be true than any other religion out there. I believe those who are non-Christians have not evaluated the evidence thoroughly or objectively, not that I expect that to happen."

Are you including not just the other religions out there but also religions that don't have a name that have yet to be defined, or theories like deism and theories like no god at all? If you still think an unemotional, computer like evidence evaluater, would say that Christianity is more likely to be correct than all its alternatives, than you are indeed as stupid as thoose who would say the same thing about OJs innocence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol! Oh the persecutions we Christians suffer!
(sw)

[David Sklansky]

But most Christians DO NOT believe that an independendent evidence evaluator would rate their specific beliefs a favorite over the rest of the field combined.

[BluffTHIS!]

David they suffer from calvinist indoctrination and its doctrine of irresistable grace. Irresistable in the sense of if you hear the gospel preached you cannot but believe it to be true and if you reject it then you are rejecting a known truth.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
But most Christians DO NOT believe that an independendent evidence evaluator would rate their specific beliefs a favorite over the rest of the field combined.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you know this how?

[txag007]

What? No response?

[ QUOTE ]

1. The discovery of the empty tomb was made by women. At the time, women weren't given standing in society as legal witnesses. If the story was made up, why base it on the testimony of a woman?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn’t evidence.

[ QUOTE ]

2. 2. The disciples hid following the arrest of Jesus for fear of being put to death. Peter even denied knowing Him three separate times. After the alleged resurrection, the disciples suddenly began to preach without fear of death. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s just the story as you have read it, a long time after the event, we would need more than Chinese whispers.

[ QUOTE ]

3. Jesus staked his entire ministry on the fact that he would rise from the dead. Why would he risk destroying the entire movement of Christianity on a false prophecy?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have mentioned this before, and it wasn’t evidence then either. I will stake my entire ministry on my resurrection right now. You will notice that as I don’t currently have a ministry, I have nothing to lose

[ QUOTE ]

4. The tombs of other religious leaders are visited and worshipped by many each year. This is true of Buddha, Confusious, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. Why is the same not true for Jesus?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t know why that is, but it isn’t evidence. Why don’t they worship the tomb he allegedly rose from?

[ QUOTE ]

5. Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph, who Mark describes as "a prominent member of the Council". It would have been destructive for the writers to invent a man of such prominence, name him specifically, and designate the tomb site, since eyewitnesses would have easily discredited the author's fallacious claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can’t see how where he was or wasn’t buried affects the likely hood he was resurrected.

[ QUOTE ]

6. Jewish and Roman sources both testify to an empty tomb. Matthew 28:12 13 specifically states that the chief priests invented the story that the disciples stole the body. There would be no need for this fabrication if the tomb had not been empty. Opponents of the Resurrection must account for this. If the tomb had not been empty, the preaching of the Apostles would not have lasted one day. All the Jewish authorities needed to do to put an end to Christianity was to produce the body of Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say here that the chief priests say the disciples stole the body. Why take Matthew’s word (a follower of a convicted terrorist) over theirs?

[ QUOTE ]

7. Along with the empty tomb is the fact that the corpse of Jesus was never found. Not one historical record from the first or second century is written attacking the factuality of the empty tomb or claiming discovery of the corpse.

[/ QUOTE ]

You already said that the Chief Priests said that the disciples stole the body. Why do you discount that?

[ QUOTE ]

8. The Apostles began preaching the Resurrection in Jerusalem. This is significant since this is the very city in which Jesus was crucified. This was the most hostile city in which to preach. Furthermore, all the evidence was there for everyone to investigate. Legends take root in foreign lands or centuries after the event. Discrediting such legends is difficult since the facts are hard to verify. However, in this case the preaching occurs in the city of the event immediately after it occurred. Every possible fact could have been investigated thoroughly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this isn’t evidence. If you see a group today preaching cult beliefs in an even more hostile environment will you convert from Christianity to their cult on the grounds that they wouldn’t dare say anything if they were wrong? That’s just isn’t how people work.

As you can see from my answers, I haven’t proved you wrong, but that’s because there isn’t any evidence there to disprove. Religious propaganda is full of this type of ‘logic’. I was handed a leaflet in the street about the problems with evolution and it was full of ‘proofs against’ in which the logic just didn’t flow between statements.

Eg. If evolution is true then there is no God, if God doesn’t exist he couldn’t have created you. But you exist, so God must exist.

I guess it had entertainment value though.

[Lestat]

Are you saying that circumstantial evidence means NOTHING? I'm not saying you should take any one as a given, but even police detectives recognize that numerous occurances of circumstantial evidence is usually meaningful enough to pursue in an investigation and won't immediately dismiss them as you seem to be doing here.

[ QUOTE ]
As you can see from my answers, I haven’t proved you wrong, but that’s because there isn’t any evidence there to disprove.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to say that here to some extent. I didn't mean to say I could dismiss it totally, but there isn't really much to dismiss...

"But MATTHEW said...."

So what?

[David Sklansky]

"But most Christians DO NOT believe that an independendent evidence evaluator would rate their specific beliefs a favorite over the rest of the field combined."

"And you know this how?"

I'm only surmising from the posts on this site. Meanwhile what say you to BluffTHIS's post about calvinism?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that circumstantial evidence means NOTHING? I'm not saying you should take any one as a given, but even police detectives recognize that numerous occurances of circumstantial evidence is usually meaningful enough to pursue in an investigation and won't immediately dismiss them as you seem to be doing here.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
As you can see from my answers, I haven’t proved you wrong, but that’s because there isn’t any evidence there to disprove.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to say that here to some extent. I didn't mean to say I could dismiss it totally, but there isn't really much to dismiss...

"But MATTHEW said...."

So what?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I've presented is circumstantial evidence. While it alone does not prove Christianity to be absolutely true, there is enough of it there to warrant further investigation.

Many of the dismissals in your earlier post are invalid. The fact that the story of the Resurrection is based on the testimony of women is an extremely important point. It really comes down to what you believe about the Resurrection. If you believe the story was just made up centuries after it allegedly occurred, as you have indicated, then why choose a witness who would not even be held in legal standing? It's a good question, is it not?

As for Jesus staking his entire ministry on His resurrection, this also comes down to what you believe about Jesus. It is verifiable from sources other than the Bible (and other than Christians and Jews for that matter) that Jesus lived, performed miracles, and claimed to be God. So if he was lying and just trying to set up a name for himself, why risk destroying it on a false prophesy?

I'm not dismissing your other rebuttals, but they basically come down to "Why should I believe the Bible?". Evidence for the truth of the Bible is something we can discuss next if you'd like.

Again, the evidence about the Resurrection is circumstantial. It does not, however, stand alone. Along with the evidence that the universe was created (presented earlier in this thread), there is evidence that the Bible is true. There is also evidence that the universe was designed, and if you are one of the ones questioning it, we can talk about evidence that Jesus actually existed.

Let me know.

We have reached a point where I need to do some research, or your quantity of information will seem to outweigh my logic. So a proper reply to that may take me a long time to do.

To quickly summarize my current position though, we agree that your evidence is circumstancial, and that is all I really showed when I went through it.

Someone pointed out that even police use circumstancial evidence; it isn't invalid.

I think there is a different process though.

Police find a dead body, then use circumstancial evidence against a culprit.

I think that you are finding circumstancial evidence, then infering a dead body you havn't found, then accusing a culprit. I hope that wouldn't stand up in court.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
"But most Christians DO NOT believe that an independendent evidence evaluator would rate their specific beliefs a favorite over the rest of the field combined."

"And you know this how?"

I'm only surmising from the posts on this site. Meanwhile what say you to BluffTHIS's post about calvinism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Posters on this site hardly account for "most" Christians.

As for Bluffthis, I hesitate to respond for fear I am speaking out of my comfort zone. I, however, do believe that God can make one's heart more open to His word. He can also harden your heart and make you less open as well.

That brings up an interesting point. If you seriously want to know about Christians and what makes us prone to believe, I challenge you to do two things. Get a Bible and pray. Pray to the God of Christians and ask him to speak to you through His word. Then, open your Bible and read. It doesn't matter where you start necessarily, although I would suggest anywhere in the New Testament.

I'm sure you'll laugh at this challenge, but if you do it you'll have an insider's perspective on us Christians. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
We have reached a point where I need to do some research, or your quantity of information will seem to outweigh my logic. So a proper reply to that may take me a long time to do.

To quickly summarize my current position though, we agree that your evidence is circumstancial, and that is all I really showed when I went through it.

Someone pointed out that even police use circumstancial evidence; it isn't invalid.

I think there is a different process though.

Police find a dead body, then use circumstancial evidence against a culprit.

I think that you are finding circumstancial evidence, then infering a dead body you havn't found, then accusing a culprit. I hope that wouldn't stand up in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, that's cool. I encourage you to research this. I'll look for your reply when you are ready. It might be better, though, to PM me. That way I'll be sure to see it.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Just playing devil's advocate to my own beliefs here, but what is the possibility that god does play favorites and that some people are just luckier (or more favored) and are shown the way--god communes with them and through them--while unlucky suckers such as myself are destined to wander alone through the pitiless universe?

Course, it just so happens that most people who claim god communes through them also happen to see Elvis's face in their Krispy Kreme donut. But still...maybe Elvis appears for them and not me...?

[ QUOTE ]
some people are just luckier (or more favored) and are shown the way--god communes with them and through them--while unlucky suckers such as myself are destined to wander alone through the pitiless universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider yourself lucky not to be chosen. If there is a god, I am quite content in my choice not to live as his servant. Life is far more interesting when you haven't been given the secret decoder ring.

I just noticed that you replied to my post, txa... and I missed it. A shame. I will reply now, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll summarize your evidence: "We don't know how or where our universe came from... therefore, the Christian God of the Bible exists."

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say "Christian God of the Bible" anywhere in my post? I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I was simply indicating the evidence for a Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP asked for evidence on why you believe. You are a Christian. You believe in the Christian God of the Bible. You used the term "God" (with a capital 'G') in your response. It is reasonable to assume by "God" that you mean the Christian God, especially since the OP was asking for evidence for what YOU believe. In the future, if you don't want someone to assume you mean the "Christian God", then please indicate that -- by saying "a god" or "a supreme being" or some such.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a combo between #1 & #3. If by "universe", you mean our observable 4-dimensional (that we know of) "universe", then current understanding would say it could not have always existed. However, a multi-verse, a higher-level universe *could* have always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is absolutely zero evidence for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is zero evidence for a god. My response was to your short-list of possiblie causes of the universe. Your list is incomplete, therefore your conclusion by the process of eliminating 2 of the 3 options, is irrational.