| Re: 7 Arguments Atheists Can't Use by Eli Brayley|
Aaron, I don't know how you can argue with the historicity of Jesus Christ, when the extra-biblical record of his life was written by objective observers.
Quote:Here you correctly describe the condition of everyone who has not yet come to 'know' that they know Jesus Christ, but this is a temporary condition for those who come to faith in him. His beloved disciple John states,
Whereas scientific striving closer to truth, indeed: less wrong, certainly does seek to build upon previous work, and without striving to begin free from bias or else in certainly, rather striving only for honest objectivity by the ongoing detection and correction of error so inescapable to the human condition,
'But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.'
'But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
1 John 2:20, 27, 28
| 2011/4/14 5:37|
| Re: |
"As for honestly asking God, is that possible without first believing in God, or at least first taking the possibility seriously? Because, honestly, I don't."
And may I ask you sir, What if your wrong?
I mean if I am wrong then I just stop existing and would be none the wiser, in fact staying in my faith though wrong I would have lived a fairly happy life and would be viewed by the world as a pretty desent human being. (Not to say Atheist can't be moral and live happily)
But perhaps my Faith is correct, and you sir are wrong. For your complete refusal to even acknowledge God you would spend an eternity in hell being punished for your crimes and disbelief. (Not because you are an Atheist but because you are a human and Every human has sinned and is fully deserving of hell but God in His mercy sent His Son to atone for our sins if we would just believe in Him and the work He did for us on the cross) Ah but you would see on that day you were wrong and every regret of rejecting God would fill your heart, why? Because you were given a chance to believe, starting with an experimental prayer you refused to pray.
To say there is no God is "jumping the gun" because you have failed to explore every avenue of possibility especially if you are refusing to pray. I am not trying to scare you but logically if your wrong its not a small consequence you will undertake but a large one... AND IF I am wrong I have absolutely zero consequences for my choice in light of eternity because it simply wouldn't have exsisted.
| 2011/4/14 5:40||Profile|
| Re: |
I don't know that I'd want to argue with the historicity of Jesus, nevertheless it remains in dispute. But what is more important, I would argue as to the importance to begin with, of the historicity of Jesus, considering that it is the legend, the mythological element of the supernatural, ever in contention. What if I'm wrong, you ask? What, Pascal's wager? Really? If there is a God, would God be fooled by me lying to myself? Do you understand or even care what would be convincing for me? And if you're wrong, you might become the less rational and tolerant because of your error, miss out upon the real wonders of the universe, and even remain insufficiently motivated in self preservation. And all of that would concern me the more. But you are right that I have not explored every avenue. No one can. Therefore, it is necessary to select those most promising as suggested by whatever preliminary investigation in to critical preference.
| 2011/4/14 7:35||Profile|
| Re: |
Even without becoming a test subject myself, I am already well aware of those who have, including those who had religious experiences and even where convinced by them. What of it? Indeed, what if the desired results never accrue for me? Will you accept that as refutation? Scientific experiments, after all, are defined by conceivable conditions of refutation.
If/When God speaks to you, only you will hear it (usually), therefore it cannot be used as evidence to anyone else, only the hearer.
Someone saying that God spoke to them is not proof of anything, but nether is someone saying that God did not speak to them.
It's a personal thing.
| 2011/4/14 7:56||Profile|
| Re: |
"would God be fooled by me lying to myself?"
No God wouldn't be fooled, and that is the point. You will be get a just punishment accordingly to what you reject. I understand some of where you are coming from but what is the point of self perservation if you know its going to end? I would also say many Christians focus on perservation and a general statement wouldn't be a fair one. I am actually interested in what would be convincing for you as evidence.
"miss out upon the real wonders of the universe"
Some of the world's greatest minds to the very least acknowledge there is a God. Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton to name a few some of which are astrologers exploring the wonders that you speak of. Do you have problems with the existance of God? and Why? I really am curious :).
| 2011/4/14 8:09||Profile|
| Re: |
The historicity of Jesus is not in dispute except with you,If that is the case the historicty of all major historic figures is also in dispute.You dont want to labour on the point because you know yourself he was a historic figure,
(I don't know that I'd want to argue with the historicity of Jesus, nevertheless it remains in dispute. )
| 2011/4/14 8:36||Profile|
| Re: AaronAgassi 2|
"I don't understand your question about the past."
Please allow me to clarify,as I am interested in your answer.
What I meant was,what do you believe regarding the past,specifically as it respects the origins of life.
In your mind,who or what is responsible.
In you mind,why,when and/or how was this accomplished.
Please answer with the scientific evidence which furnishes the rational proof in your mind,which you embrace at present,if able.
Thanks for your consideration.
| 2011/4/14 9:57||Profile|
| Re: |
Nasher, we seem to agree, that mystical experiences are inconclusive. But it's worse than that: Mystical experiences, vivid and personally persuasive or not, are not good evidence, even subjectively to the one experienced thereof. To reiterate, I accept the mystical experience of others. I do not need personal corroboration. That's simply not the issue.
And mguldner, should I truly fear the God who hides himself from mortal view, endows humanity with reason, but then punishes rational disbelievers working from Empirical evidence or the lack thereof, any more than I ought to fear the Norse gods punishing me unless I fall in battle? Or shouldn't I fear my own conscience more? Because quite frankly, both such notions are similarly offensive. Aside from which, as with Appeal to Force or Fear, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, remains a logical falsity of relevance, even when the alleged consequence is not so entirely suppositional and circuitously reasoned.
And staff, unless I am dreaming, there is indeed ongoing dispute over the historicity of Jesus. But research for yourself. And you are still side stepping my actual point.
Savannah, in answer to your question as to the past, I am as Neo-Darwinian as the next fellow. And my own evidence is no different than the current body of scientific evidence on that score. Evolution remains the most elegant hypothesis explaining the available evidence. But I do find myself lately undecided as to the Big Bang or any sort of steady state as perhaps suggested by the Plasma Universe. Red shift telemetry from a space probe beyond our sun's plasma field would be nice.
| 2011/4/14 14:53||Profile|
| Re: 7 Arguments Atheists Can't Use by Eli Brayley|
But I do find myself lately undecided as to the Big Bang or any sort of steady state as perhaps suggested by the Plasma Universe. Red shift telemetry from a space probe beyond our sun's plasma field would be nice.
You might, if you do some digging, enjoy sunorbit.net. The author believes he's made enough measurements to bring the big bang theory into question, because some of the assumptions upon which it rests. It's an interesting site, anyway.
Quote:The key word in this phrase is 'hypothesis'.
Evolution remains the most elegant hypothesis
But within this hypothesis, you do not doubt your own existence, do you?
Within this hypothesis you were born, breathe, cry, eat, drink, grow, sleep, plant, build. You love. You think. You read. You write. You wrestle. You work.
Know what? When God made man, he made man like him. This explains everything about you, even your doubt about his existence. Not because God doubts his own existence. That would be ridiculous. Not even an 'elegant hypothesis' would exist then. But, God withdraws his face from those who refuse to seek him, at the same time making an important promise - that whoever WILL seek him, WILL find him.
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
And Noah's son, who helped him build the Ark by which the whole human race was saved, was alive at the time God spoke to Abraham, from whose grandson the first Israelites were born, thus continuing the human story right up to this day.
| 2011/4/14 16:22|
| Re: |
Are you saying that Jesus didnt walk on the earth?The opponents of Christ in the early centuries didnt doubt at all that he existed this only started in recent history.
The opponents of Jesus knew nobody would believe them in the early years if they said he didnt exist.
What point did I side step and I will try to unstep it?
P.s You must admit it is a bit funny that evolutionists/atheists are fanatical evangelists.The very fact that they do preach non creation or existance of God in such a manner is a proof that evolution/ atheism is in fact just a religion the very thing they strive to destroy.
| 2011/4/14 18:25||Profile|