DarkBronzePlant

As others have stated in this thread, it really falls on those making a positive claim to prove that it is true, rather than on those making the negative claim to prove that it is false.

But I'll take another angle. First, I'm going to suppose that you'll agree with me that almost nothing can be conclusively, one hundred percent proven, especially things that have allegedly occured in that past. Thus, we have to draw a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence. If you disagree, please let me know.

So now, we attempt to prove that the stories in the bible, particularly those involving the supernatural (e.g. the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god who made himself flesh, came down to earth and died.) are true. So we gather the available evidence:

1. The Bible

That's about it, from what I can tell. For all the millions of Christians out there, laypeople and clery alike, their Christian belief all stems from what the Bible says.

So we are faced with two general options: 1) the Bible was written by the all-knowing God, or 2) the Bible was written by people.

Already, one should consider that the latter is the more likely of the two. In fact, most Christian scholars will say that the Bible is the "inspired" word of God; that is, God communicated to the authors what to write...kind of a melding between options one and two. Buthow could we know this to be true? Simply because the writers said so? Perhaps you are willing to take the authors at their word. Apparently millions of people are. Myself, I tend to consider the likelihood of the existence of some fantastic, perfect being, versus it was just made up, just like every other myth and religion out there.

But let's dig further. You state the historical accuracies of the bible. To me, that requires a bit of "duh!" When the bible was written, it wasn't describing historical events, it was describing current events. So if, for example, Caesar Augustus demanded that citizens return to Jerusalem to register to pay taxes, then of course such an event would be written into the stories. The same way actual historical events were, for example, written into the Odyssey. Hell, Buffy the Vampire Slayer weaves actual events into the story line; that doesn't mean that I'm afraid of getting my neck bitten when I'm outside at night.

So any historical accuracies verified by other historical accounts amount to a big "what do you expect?" There is every reason in the world why the Bible's stories of the supernatural could be complete works of fiction, but also contain some historically-accurate accounts.

What else would we expect if the bible was written by this god? Well, we'd expect it to be entirely accurate about, well, everything. What might we expect if the book was created by people? We'd expect items in there that people of 2000 years ago might have thought true, but that today we know to be false. Picture this... you're living two-thousand years ago. No one has ever seen what the earth looks like from outer space. No one that you know of has ever sailed around the world. So what do you think the earth is like? Well, you think it's flat, a very reasonable assumption back then. So in your stories, you write about the earth being a flat piece, affixed to pedastals. You write about trees and mountains atop which one can climb to see all of creation--again, a perfectly reasonable thing if you believe the earth is flat; entirely incorrect if you know otherwise. And where does the rain come from? Again, if you don't know better, it sounds reasonable that the earth is surrounded by water, separated by a firmament that occassionally opens up and lets rain through. And again, entirely unreasonable if you know no such firmament exists.

Now imagine you're an all-knowing god. You know all about the earth because, hey, you allegedly created it! Why would you write about it, describing it as flat, attached to pedastals, with a firmament separating it from water, etc, etc...?

The Bible, the only piece of evidence whatsoever for the existence of God and the God-ness of Jesus, is just a book. A book that both common-sense and evidence should tell you was just written by humans. Maybe it's got some great stories and themes to it. But great stories and themes do not truth make.

Gooch's dad

Yes, I'm bored at work today.


Let's say I claim that the entire universe was created last Tuesday by space aliens from another dimension, and they created it with your memories intact. Mine too. Would you find it to be an 'impossible requirement' to actually ask me to provide evidence for this claim? Or would you just shrug and say that I've presented a non-falsifiable claim that is irrelevant to your worldview?

You missed my point. You are ad hoc defining your God to be outside of the universe. I want to know why you define your God this way.

I'm asking you to present such logic for the existence of a God that interacts with humans, and evidence for that interaction. What is a 'true theology of God' and how do you know it is true?

One of the biggies for me is the difference between the nativity accounts in Luke vs. Matthew. They cannot be reconciled with known history, specifically Josephus and Dio Cassius. I'm happy to start a new thread in the Biblical Criticism & Archeology area if you'd like to go over this.

I don't think I've asked you for proof. Nothing can be proven in an absolute sense. I would like to see strong evidence, that's all. If the preponderance of evidence is in favor of your claim, and there is no contradictory (falsifying) evidence, then you've got a very strong case for a reasonable belief.

Oh, and what the h*ll is 'intellectual mocking'? We are discussing our beliefs. That's what this board is FOR.

Cheers,

-Kelly

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Apologetix :

As a philosopher of religion, I don't find these interesting at all. What I find interesting are arguments for and against the existence of the sort of God in which apologetic Christians believe.

There aren't any good arguments for traditional monotheism, and the best argument against it is that there is no good argument for it. The best argument that it is false is that widespread, intense, apparently gratuitous suffering and premature death exist.

But that's not even a coherent thought. How could an all-powerful God lack the ability to learn?

joedad

I take it that you are stating that all humans are "bad" by nature.

Is it possible then for a human to be neither theist nor atheist, a christian being a theist?

If so, could you give an example? If not, could you explain why not?

joe

Mageth

This is a misunderstanding of the Christian faith. The misunderstanding has occured in that you believe God created Jesus. While this may be true for the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons, for those who follow Biblical Christianity it is believed that Jesus Himself was actually God. Therefore it is believed that God died for His creation.

As Eudamonist indicated, that's not how the story goes. Jesus was crucified, but lo and behold, a couple of days later, there he was again! All that is described as dying in the crucifixion account is the physical body. The "God" purportedly occupying the body (well, and actually the body as well), was reported to be strolling about better than ever a couple of days later, eating fish and walking through doors.

If God died, why isn't he dead?

Again, I think it takes quite a case to prove that they aren't true. To my knowledge I haven't been able to find any significant errors in both the theology and historical accuracy of the Bible. Of course the theology cannot be "proven" wrong or right because it is founded upon a level in which proof has no meaning. However the history is very viable in that if the history is wrong, then the theology really cannot carry much weight. But like I said, I do not know of any contradictions to the Bible's history. The main ones that I know if that it cannot be absolutely proven that David was the Kings and such events like that. But I cannot say I have found evidence that contradicts the Bible.

Modern science has very convincingly illustrated tha the Genesis account of Creation is a myth (and thus "wrong history"). The Noahic flood also suffers from a complete lack of corroborating evidence; indeed, the geologic record (and logic, when applied to the fantastical, magical ark able to hold two or more of every land species on earth) indicates that there was no global flood as described. More "wrong history."

Those are only two "historical" events of many that the bible definitely or probably got wrong. The Exodus account is another bit of bible "history" which suffers from lack of corroborating evidence, and considered by many to be a fabrication. It appears that theology can't carry any more weight than the ark.

I'm very open to it. For me, the Bible cannot be true if it contains major errors, such as getting events wrong. I mean, to assert that the Bible could possible be true when there is proven evidence against it is simply ignorance on a whole new level.

So abandon your ignorance. The first (and perhaps biggest) major error in the bible is found in the first chapter, after all.

Mageth

But that's not even a coherent thought. How could an all-powerful God lack the ability to learn?

I like that! Since I can learn, I'll stick it in my memory for later use.

Jamie_L

Apologetix:

I'm not actually interested in facts in this thread either. I am, however, interested in why you believe. I find that both theists and atheists make a lot of complex arguements, but when you boil it down, they have more simple reasons to believe or not believe.

As I stated, it seems like your OP describes what you believe and not why you believe it. If I'm mistaken, please explain to me what I'm missing.

As an analogy, suppose an atheist were to say:

"I do not believe God exists because I know that the supernatural does not exist. Atheism is the only worldview that allows people to have full responsibility for their own actions and total freedom from arbitrary, authoritarian morals."

This is not my actual position, but consider it. It does not actually present any reason why atheism might be true. It just states a belief and a preference. Your OP appears much the same to me.

A better explanation would be: "I am an atheist because I have never encountered anything that convinces me God exists. The universe I observe is more consistent with the notion that God does not exist than with the notion that God does exist."

That's a reason (and this time, it is actually what I think).

Jamie

Jayhawker Soule

First of all, welcome. You make some very good points. In fact, there is nothing in the above with which I would disagree.

The problem I see is 2-fold.

1. While it is perfectly fair for to to position your God(s) outside the domain of science, it is equally fair for us to insist on this separation. For example, I have absolutely no problem with a faith-based assertion that God(s) love you, but I do have a problem with a faith-based assertion of a Global Flood, and the subsequent efforts to distort science in an effort to fabricate evidence for such an absurdity. Fortunately, you've shown no tendency to engage in such antics.
2. While you position your God(s) such that "proof cannot be defined", you must do so humbly, and with the constant recognition that it is undefinable for both of us. I am more that willing to join with Strahler as quoted below. But you must also be willing to recognize that you have no proof of one God versus many Gods, of a loving God verses a malicious one, of an honest God versus a manipulative God, etc. In fact, you have properly position your God(s) such that there is absolutey nothing that can be known with confidence. There is, in fact, no selection criteria that supports your particular faith over any other fantasy or delusion.

I can live with these problems, but can you?

Mageth

Apologetix:

I have no desire to present "facts" or to expound upon the historical accuracies of the Bible in a feeble attempt to "prove" to you why I believe in Christ. While I think such debates are healthy, I believe that they bear absolutely no fruit when in contact with hardened athiest (at least in my expirience). So instead, I just want to show you the personal reasons as to why I am a Christian.

I think you contradict yourself a bit with posts like:

However the history is very viable in that if the history is wrong, then the theology really cannot carry much weight. But like I said, I do not know of any contradictions to the Bible's history. The main ones that I know if that it cannot be absolutely proven that David was the Kings and such events like that. But I cannot say I have found evidence that contradicts the Bible.

and:

I'm very open to it. For me, the Bible cannot be true if it contains major errors, such as getting events wrong. I mean, to assert that the Bible could possible be true when there is proven evidence against it is simply ignorance on a whole new level.

both of which indicate that you consider the historicity of the bible (including, I assume the various miracles, e.g. the ressurection, described therein) as a "fact" which is essential to your belief.

Refused

Ok, my question:

If God died, who resurrected him?

- Refused