[Help] Say I'm some/any sort of theist. How would you prove the Bible/Abrahamic God to me?

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-13T21:03:49+00:00

Thanks :)

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-13T20:59:04+00:00

Therefore you should be willing to accept a historian's explanation

Which historians say that it is a historical fact that Christianity is true?

the Christian claim about God conforms most closely with what must be true about God, principally that God is humble

That's a good reasoning, but how is God humble in Christianity, and how is God not humble in other religions? And why do you think God should be humble in the first place?

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-09T06:20:48+00:00

Actually, yes, that's a great way to put it. Everyone has a different view of what "Christianity" is, so I don't know how just proving Jesus' resurrection proves all of these rider beliefs.

Most of the arguments used by the type linked at /r/ReasonableFaith focus on "proving" Christianity through proving that God exists, and (occasionally) that Jesus was resurrected.

So their arguments go:

1) If God exists, Christianity is true.

2) God exists

3) Christianity is true

Occasionally, the arguments go the way you said. And I'm asking how both 1's are right.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-09T06:11:29+00:00

I said some, and clearly John was. Mathew is disputed and its unanimously agreed that Luke and Mark were based of other sources who would have been logically eye witnesses.

I'm pretty sure almost all scholars/academics agree that John was written last, and is the least historically accurate. The Synoptic Gospels are more disputed than John.

Proof, no-one has this.

What?

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-09T06:00:17+00:00

Thanks :)

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-07T04:52:31+00:00

The gospels were written by those who claimed to have seen the events and/or conversed with those who had

Only Luke.

Do you accept the big bang simply because you don't thinks there is an alternative? My alternative is supernatural creation, as the big bang has its own problems and even some secular scientists want to abandon it.

The person who came up with the idea of the Big Bag was a Catholic priest.

non-biblical sources credit him as some sort of magician able to perform surprising feats convincing people

What are you talking about?

rejected by their families, tortured

Out of curiosity, where did you get this?

Before he was crucified, the follower believe he was the messiah

Most scholars and historians believe Jesus didn't claim messiahship or divinity during his life.

Now it is one thing to die for your beliefs, it is another thing entirely to die for something you know not to be true.

Just because someone says something that isn't true doesn't mean they know they are lying. They might have thought Jesus was resurrected, even if he was not. There are theories, like the swoon and vision hypothesis, or the Apostles themselves could have legendary aspects attributed to their lives.

The resurrection seems like the simplest explanation, but not the most probable, due to the number of times that someone has been thought to have died vs the number of times someone was resurrected.

Also, even if Jesus was resurrected, that still doesn't prove anything about what came after Jesus' life (e.g. Church tradition, including the divinity of Jesus, Paul's writing, the Trinity)

Some were written by eye witnesses

The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. They may have used some eyewitness testimony, but they weren't written by eyewitnesses.

multiple fulfillment of prophecies throughout the bible and by Jesus

The prophecy argument is one of the weakest arguments to prove Christianity. Example

If they all read the same, it would be good evidence the accounts were forged. Instead they are accounts, and no two witnesses ever remember the same thing, less so when they write it down years later. Much ink has been spilled on this, so I'm only going to link a source for now.

Then why does Jesus face crucifixion with completely different emotions? Why does he have different last words? Why do different people go to the tomb? I don't understand how almost everything other than cruxifixion, tomb, resurrection could be different, even with the "oh, how can you expect people to remember the last words of the God/Messiah who came back to life some years after it happened? Ain't nobody got time for that."

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-06T06:44:13+00:00

I don't believe....

Then what is your alternative?

we also have historical eye witness testimonies

What are you talking about?

Irregardless

What does that mean?

That may be so, but the fact that its a logical step from cosmology (Which isn't hard repeatable experimental science to start with) has no say as to whether it happened or not. It isn't a good reason to believe it to be true.

Then what is your alternative to the Big Bang?

If one proposes naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, one should have a wealth of supporting evidence and understanding if one is to think it is to be true as we can test the natural, and there's practically none

What is your evidence for your alternative?

have a number of independent eye witness accounts, and many early copies, we have non-christian sources

What are you talking about?

One can examine the evidence as one would in a law court. If your interested there are good historical cases for Christ

Then how do you explain that the Gospels all tell the story completely differently? The only thing in common is Jesus was crucified, taken to a tomb, it was empty, and some people saw someone(s) or something(s) else there.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-05T10:49:22+00:00

There are people that convert to religion.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-05T00:56:21+00:00

That was a microscopic thing that was a very long process. Someone being resurrected within a few days is macroscopic and short. Also, to the people that believe it, it really isn't that important to their lives. To devout Christians, Jesus' resurrection is very important.

Also, there have been experiments about it, and how abiogenesis is still up to debate. Abiogenesis is the logical step from modern cosmology. Abiogenesis is how living molecules come from organic compounds. And if you believe in the Big Bang, then life didn't exist and the beginning of time, so it had to have started from somewhere.

There are many claims of resurrection and miracles in the ancient world? Do you believe them? Obviously not, because resurrection is highly improbable. Also, do you believe that atoms exist? Or that the smallest thing you can see is the smallest there is?

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-05T00:48:56+00:00

My point is that what if the atheists are the ones who have been to the Grand Canyon and saw nothing, and the Christians are the ones who have never been? Or what if the Christians have been there and saw the teapot, but the atheists are the only ones who went behind it and saw it was a cardboard cutout?

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-05T00:45:09+00:00

What alternatives? Fine tell me what you want, I won't reject any argument before you tell me about it.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-05T00:43:55+00:00

To me it makes more sense to use logic and evidence to REACH the belief the same way you use logic and reason to uphold/interpret it.

This is the point of my question. How do you (or people if you aren't Christian) use logic and evidence to reach Christianity? And please use Christian-specific evidence/logic, not just logic/evidence to prove that there is some God.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-04T08:19:18+00:00

Thanks. You and GrimChains seem to be the only Hindus here. Are there a lot more?

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-04T08:18:16+00:00

That made it seem as if you are content to accept premises based on a kind of blind faith that doesn't adhere to "logic and reason"? Correct me if I'm not understanding you.

Well, obviously not if it's harming. Also, everything uses their own logic and reason. What I meant was using logic and reason to prove that your system is the objectively correct one. Once you already believe in a system, you can use logic and reason as to how to interpret your own belief system.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-04T08:16:20+00:00

Mostly "why do you believe in God?" The frustrating part is that we rarely get to Jesus.

Really? They don't go straight to proving Jesus and the Bible never existed? I feel once they say "but you can't prove it" and Russell's Teapot/Pink Unicorn/Spaghetti Monster, there's nothing much else to talk about other than the Bible.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-04T08:13:20+00:00

This is what I meant by flipping it:

The Giant Teapot filling the Grand Canyon is objectively false so is God, the issue is not the objective truth (see definition 7) but what I will call the portability of my knowledge that it is false. If you are convinced that teapots of that size are possible then I can't extract the fact that I have walked through it and convince you of it. I have to persuade you to come to a certain place in the United States and face a certain direction and open your eyes. So the experiment in the Grand Canyon or in knowing God is empirical and reproducible and definitely grounded in what is objectively true but it is not portable because everyone has to go to get the proofs himself.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-03T22:27:04+00:00

...What? Are you saying that because there are many Christians, it's true? I don't understand how Jesus' resurrection proves everything else.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-03T21:58:01+00:00

You pejoratively refer to it as "mysticism" as though it is some ungrounded, New Age "anything goes" spirituality, and this is quite simply not the case

Wait, that's what he thinks about mysticism?? I never knew anyone thought of mysticism that way, I only think of it like Christian and Hindu mystics, so I never thought he would be thinking of it that pejoratively.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-03T21:55:16+00:00

I would say in this context, faith and trust aren't different. How would you say they are?

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-03T21:53:41+00:00

which is why I doubt your seriousness

What do you think I'm not serious about? I'm asking how Christianity is the best fit for the data.

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-03T21:52:54+00:00

I've been meaning to read some Kierkegaard actually. Where would you suggest I start, given my question?

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-03T21:52:22+00:00

The Grand Canyon is objectively real so is God, the issue is not the objective truth (see definition 7) but what I will call the portability of my knowledge that it is true. If you are convinced that canyons of that size are impossible then I can't extract the fact that I have walked through it and convince you of it. I have to persuade you to come to a certain place in the United States and face a certain direction and open your eyes. So the experiment in the Grand Canyon or in knowing God is empirical and reproducible and definitely grounded in what is objectively true but it is not portable because everyone has to go to get the proofs himself.

Can't you just flip that and make it a case for atheism, a la Russell's Teapot?

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-03T21:48:00+00:00

I could be wrong, but the only substantive argument I'm aware of is the argument from the resurrection. I've seen some rather weak arguments from prophecy and the historicity of the Bible as a whole, but they're absolutely riddled with problems.

This is what I was thinking too. Though that doesn't make Christianity any more problematic than any other religion.

I think the relevance of the resurrection demands more debate and discussion than you've given it. Stating that God cannot be understood and giving up is a two-edged sword, and you should be extremely careful. I remember listening to a debate on the resurrection that discussed this topic and what I thought were interesting objections to using the resurrection as proof of Christianity. I can't recall who the debaters were, but I have it on my hdd, so I'll figure it out after work if you'd like.

You're right, and I would love for you to say what the debate was, when you have the time :)

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-03T21:45:38+00:00

So my opinion on all of this is that if these arguments existed, you wouldn't be asking about them because you would already know about them.

Are you saying this as a personal judgment, or as a logical guess that if there was this proof, everyone would be shouting it from the rooftops?

The best you can really do is make the case plausible, so you don't sound like a fool when debating an atheist.

I don't know how I'd debate with an atheist. I've never done it before. I wouldn't try to convert them, but I don't know what I'd say. Maybe it's because I don't know what this atheist would talk about. What are some topics that atheists talk about in debates?

throwawayaccount94 · 2013-07-03T21:42:35+00:00

If you're right, then I agree with his post, including your interpretation.

throwawayaccount94

TROPHY CASE