Johnny Skeptic

Even if Jesus healed people, and bodily rose from the dead, and even if God can predict the future, that would still leave apologists with the insurmountable problem of dealing with the fact that at best, the odds are 50/50 that God is good and will provide believers with a comfortable eternal life. If a lying, deceptive Devil is reasonably possible, then a lying, deceptive God is reasonably possible.

Is there really sufficient evidence for people to become Christians? Well of course there isn’t. There should not be any doubts whatsoever that if all of the evidence were EXACTLY the same with the single exception that God is evil and will send everyone to hell, not only would Christians have rejected Christianity, but they would have gone out of their way to disprove it and accept other religions that promised them eternal comfort. No matter what the religion, the lure of eternal comfort causes believers to defend all kinds of preposterous and outlandish claims, some of which are even more preposterous and outlandish than the claims that the Bible makes. The followers of religions don't really care who provides them with eternal comfort as long as it is available. Eternal comfort is definitely the goal. Who provides it is completely irrelevant.

Some Christians at this forum have read a lot of books and are quite scholarly, but their scholarship cannot adequately address the issues that I have discussed. I have conceded for the sake of argument some of the most important claims that they make and ended up with what I believe are much better arguments than if I had opposed the claims. The proof is in the testing. I challenge Christians to contest my arguments.

hatsoff

Christians have faith. They don't need to deal with data, evidence and odds.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's irrelevant, since it's not what Christians believe.

That's part of it, yes, but don't forget indoctrination. Some religions also have a different sort of allure: Wicca, Buddhism, etc. Other religions are meant as scams: Scientology, Mormonism, etc. Also, one of those religions might be true--maybe even Christianity. Be careful not to oversimplify.

That's a baseless claim, and plainly false.

I'm no scholar, but I have done just that.

You seem too over-confident, as if you have already dismissed any chance of being mistaken. So I'm not sure if any challenge could help you or anyone else better understand the issues.

Johnny Skeptic

Followers of all religions make the same claim. What makes your claim any different? This is the Biblical Criticism and History Forum, so data, evidence and odds are what this forum is all about. However, data, evidence and odds cannot adequately determine what the true nature of God actually is. An evil God could easily deceive you.

I said "their scholarship cannot ADEQUATELY address the issues that I have discussed." You haven't done that. My goal is always to try to force Christians to use faith as their only argument, so if faith is your only argument, then great.

Do you place any importance on tangible evidence such as physical healings that you might have had, or that other Christians have had? If so, please post a few examples.

hatsoff

Nothing in particular.

Apologists don't generally try to prove that the Bible is true, but rather defend the fact that it cannot be disproven. Since by definition anything is possible through an omnipotent God, all the evidence and data in the world cannot disprove the possibility.

Sure. But that's not what Christians believe.

hatsoff

Your discussion is a challenge apparently meant to disprove Christianity. An adequate response simply points out your errors, as I have done above. I'm not trying to prove Christianity--that is impossible. Conversely, disproving it is also impossible. You should know better.

I wouldn't call it an "argument." It's simply what they believe.

No. Some Christians do believe they have been shown miracles, and base their faith on them. In most cases, though, I think, Christians who claim to have witnessed miracles still base their belief on God-given faith, and are only appreciating the beauty of their religion with respect to worldy phenomenon.

In any case, I am well aware that Christians believe some far out stuff. The fact remains none of it can be absolutely disproven.

Johnny Skeptic

Such is not the case. It is my position that 1) the Bible cannot be proven or disproven, nor any other religion for that matter, 2) at best, the odds are 50/50 that God is good and will send Christians to heaven and not to hell, 3) an evil God would easily be able to deceive humans, and that 4) I am pleased when Christians use a "faith only" approach to defending the Bible.

The errors are yours, not mine. I am not trying to prove anything. As as agnostic, my position is neutral, but your position is most certainly not neutral.

I do know better, but obviously you don't because your position is not neutral.

Call it what you wish. The point is, what they believe is based solely upon faith, and I always try to force Christians to use faith as their approach to encouraging people to become Christians.

Consider the following scriptures:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee [Johnny: Solely because of his words? Not a chance.], and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

In the NIV, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

As I have shown, on some occasions Jesus and the disciples did not rely upon subjective spiritual/emotional experiences to confirm tangible experiences, but rather relied upon tangible experiences confirm spiritual/emotional experiences. 2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." It is a fact that that is lie. A loving God would give everyone equal access to the truth. If Jesus (or some advanced alien who was impersonating him) returned to earth and perform miracles, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced that the Bible is true.

Clearly, God is not an equal access provider, and your faith only argument just flew right out of the window because Jesus clearly rejected it on a number of occassions, and so did the disciples even AFTER the Holy Sprit had come to the church, and in spite of hundreds of surviving eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead.

hatsoff

I'm not sure where you get this "50/50" figure. If there is a God--and that is a big if--how can anyone possibly know, logically speaking, his character? Does he even have a "character," according to our limited conceptions? Is there a true "good" and "evil," or are those subjective terms only? Is there a Heaven? A Hell? Reincarnation? Nothingness? Another, totally foreign afterlife? Your gross oversimplification of the facts seems to be where you draw these odds, and they are just not practical--or true, for that matter.

Is it not? Do my religious affiliations color my judgment, as you have so crudely implied? Do all those who believe in a God of some sort lack a sufficient grasp of logic?

That is usually the best approach, sure.

Not exactly. See, the Bible tells us that God gives us a gift of faith through the Holy Spirit--that he compels us to believe. It is not, therefore, by our own power that we have this faith. However, there are certain means by which this faith is given to people. One is baptism, another communion, but the third is the Word of God. When the Apostles performed miracles in Jesus' name, they were preaching the Word of God.

You're making too many assumptions about the nature of a divine being. If God exists, how do you go about questioning his judgment? How could you (or me), a mere human limited to earthly perceptions and weak logic, possibly begin to understand the nature of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity? And if you cannot, how can you say what a "loving God" would or would not do?

Is that a serious argument?

Name one.

RPS

Since when did two choices require 50:50 odds?

Correct.

I think so, though reasonable people can disagree.

Nonsense. Do you have any evidence to support these outlandish claims or should we accept your assertions on faith alone?

How long have you suffered from these delusions of grandeur?

Johnny Skeptic

Let me clarify my position. Assuming that intelligent design is a given, actually there are three possibilities instead of two, that God is good, evil, or amoral. The problem is finding out which of the three is most likely the one true God. Do you have any suggestions how we might accomplish this? An evil God could easily masquerade as a good God. So, instead of the odds that God is good being one out of two, they are only one out of three.

hatsoff

What's left to discuss is your claim that "Bible apologetics is not valid," when it clearly is.