That was a mutuially respectful debate, I enjoyed it. Sadly, those don't tend to exist in the real world. What I learned, nobody can convince anyone of anything if thier opponent is well educated enough. Interesting idea though. If God is real, and people claim to have a relationship with him there is nothing that can change there oppenions. On the contrary, it would seem that ether side can feel competly confident in thier belief. It's an argument that can't end, I guess.
ok I'm convinced the Resurrection is true HISTORICALLY! but how in my opinion most of history is false anyway! I mean Japan and Germany could be the good guys in WW2 for all you know!! History is written by the WInners!
Why would it be relevant his place of birth to the belief he happens to be a savior of a variety of ethnic and linguistic groups? This is similar to the objection that Buddha was Nepali, or Mohammad was Arab, or Zoroaster was Bactrian... does it really matter?
OK , let's assume the Resurrection happened. Was it a real sacrifice for God to give His Son's life to save the sins of Mankind , knowing His Son would be sitting next to him again in just 3 days ??? Had God sacrificed His Son, never to see Him again, in order to save the sins of Mankind. NOW THAT'S a Sacrafice. Think about it !
when talking about the question of free will, you should have brought up not only omniscience, but also omnipotence..because if he can only see the future, it doesnt necessarily mean he created that future or has the power to change it, thus i think we have free will.however.if he is all powerful AND all knowing, then i think by definition free will is impossible because he CREATED us knowing full well what we were going to do.but great show, i love how everyone can talk openly and respectfully
The thing is Christians are always using archaeology to say "well we found an ancient village mentioned in the Bible so it must all be true" when I think so what if the place was real? It doesn't mean there was ever an "invisible sky wizard" named God.
I don't expect anybody here to believe me on blind faith but with my experiences with the paranormal made me believe in an afterlife. The reason I know I am not crazy is because 2 of my friends witnessed the same event with me at the same time.
Heres what happened.... the three of us were in my house and then the master bedroom door started opening and slamming harder and faster than what a human would be able to do, All 3 of us witnessed this, and this happend after a couple of recent deaths.
what about the naghammadi texts? stories written about jesus that were rejected. such as the gospel of thomas and other writings. because it was written down doesnt make it true.
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. Psalm 14:1. knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." 2 Peter 3:3-4.
the problem with your guess jeremy atheist is that back then you could only record it it with eyewitness accounts and history documentation. all the events surrounding the ressurection brings us to a good conclusion. the radical and sudden belief in a group of people following judaism, the empty tomb of Jesus and the post ressurecction recordings (written ofcourse)
muhammed didnt use accounts of people, or facts....he used a sword and pointed it around.....read your history.
Habermas is great got the infedel guy all agree and stuff ha ha ha ahhaa! Btw, very strong case for resurrection. In the end, if God exist then believers won the game. If not, we all can party.
scholarship is the way to go....find out the origin of whatever and work from there. A lotta people refer to the Bible as a whole, which I think is a mistake, whether he be Christian or non-believer.
Reggie's a very sharp fellow. But, as I said, he needs to refine his argumentation a bit- namely in pacing and turn-taking (and it's an art form, so I don't expect it to come easily- and some are savants, when it comes to this particular skill) but that doesn't truly strike at the merits of either debater- this is moreso theatrics. The attention of the American public, and the sake of time, are gods we must all defer and sacrifice to, apparently, when it comes to debate in our modern age.
I am a Christian, but I thoroughly enjoy anyone who generously, and fairly engages in the marketplace of ideas, and I really enjoyed this. You will not find on the side of, say, Islam, this kind of show and tell, and friendly discussion- I'm sorry for, and ashamed of the hostile "God-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it" types who attack you guys, ad hominem, in the atheist/agnostic crowd. Reggie's a great host- my only criticism is he gets bogged down in defining terms, overmuch.
Our individual choices partly depend on the choices we as a society or all societys collectively make and have made throughout history -- Therefore the effects of these choices can cause us to choose in a certain way which would exclude everyting else. That is not free will. That is karma. We are all linked to oneanother and that is why we would be better off living in peace with ourselves with nature and each other. That is a choise we have to make independently yet together
Hey man if you really do not believe in God or a Almighty being.....let me ask you one question ... Go search in the bible because on the net you wont find what I will tell ya....Do you believe in yourself?...and if your answer is yes then you believe in God....and go and search in the bible for the sentence Do you believe in God!??!
Thanks Infidelguy! MUST SEE video.google The Money Masters, The Brotherhood of Darkness, JT Gatto State Education, Expelled, Global Warming or Global Governance, The Fluoride Deception, The Truth About Vaccines, The Science and Politics of Cancer, The Marijuana Conspiracy, Global Nuclear Coverup ...
Honestly, many of you are right, substantial evidence cannot be obtained to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus did, in fact, come to earth, to die and be ressurected. Thus, I find it difficult to impose on you my beliefs through logical argument alone. However, I had, what I believe to be, a tangible and real personal experience with God, which I hope you will all experience as well at one stage. Before that happens, arguing with all of you will bring us nowhere. I believe a, you believe b
Allah and what God? Certainly not The God our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Even if you don't believe in Christ, Allah and Jesus' teachings are completely different.
You could also say that Julius Caesar never existed. That doesn't make you correct. Maybe you should consider making sound comments instead of childish remarks.
Ok what about the over 6000 manuscripts and portions of manuscripts of the New Testament including secular works like that of Josephus. Might I add that those manuscripts where not all written by one team of men but by many men recording the History of Christ and His Apostles and His Church, including the teachings of Paul. Isn't it funny how thwy corroborate each other. how many manuscripts are there of Julius Caesar's Galic Wars, less than 12.
Might I add that some of the New Testament manuscripts/earliest copy, we have date as far back as 2 1/2 decades after the original. Julius Caesar's Galic Wars earliest copy 1000 years after the original. What about the writings of Socrates, we have no copies. Plato told us what we know about him. Did you know that the writings of the New Testament can be reproduced to within 12 verses from the writings of the early Church fathers.How is that for corroboration.
Might I also add that the existence of Caesar doesn't actually detract from the lessons he taught, even less so for Socrates.
There's also the little matter that Caesar claimed to have built a really awesome bridge, while Christophiles claim that Jesus not only cursed a fig tree and walked on water, but brought the dead back to life and magically transformed water into wine. We wouldn't believe this if we heard it about a guy who's alive NOW, let alone someone two thousand years ago.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. While you might be correct about all the things you said above, it still is nowhere near the amount of evidence needed to justify the ridiculous claims in the Bible.
@mojorhythm Funny you say that. I wonder how much evidence a person needs because when we learn of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and he is burning in hell and sees Abraham, he asks him to send Lazarus to tell his brothers who are still alive of the torment he is in. He tells him simply that it wont matter if someone raises from the dead, if they first wont believe the Word they already have.
You have all the evidence you need, the testimony of nature and the light of your conscious.
This argument is a double edged sword. I could reverse engineer it, put a different god in and see if you find it convincing, for example: "You have all the evidence for Zeus you need, the testimony of nature and the light of your conscience".
"You have all the evidence for Allah you need, the testimony of nature and the light of your conscience".
"You have all the evidence of Vishnu you need, the testimony of nature and the light of your conscience".
@mojorhythm Did you know that just on a scientific note and making a case for historical validity, that the bible is the most Historically accurate document in the world.? It is the most read book and the one translated into the most languages. I guess most of the human beings on the planet are idiots...except for you of course.
@nattyd50 You've been drinking the Christian kool-aid brother.
The Gospels were written by anonymous, evangelical, Greek-speaking persons at least 40 years after the fact. The stories of the Gospels have no external corroborating testimony until Josephus (which lots of scholars believe was forged). The Gospels contradict each other in the wildest possible fashion, and they are loaded with common symbolic motifs such as literary irony, reversal of expectations etc. They are not historical.
hey, i read the last comment (mojorhythem) wrote to you, which is just under mine, and wow.. lol this is clearly someone who is ignorant of the truth!.. im not even going to directly comment him because his comment was just too stupid for me to react on... the Bible was actually written 12 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, and it was written by first hand people who met and seen Jesus, who WITNESSED his miracles.. these people like (mojorhythem) my friend are
are honestly just too foolish and retarded for you to put your brain with.. lol these are the people who believe in Alexander the great and everything he did, but choose not to believe in Jesus and what he did, even though alexander the great was born 500 years before Jesus and his first writings didnt come until 400 years after his death by only TWO MEN named Arion and Plutarch.. these people embarrass themselves by saying the Bible can not be used as evidence or isn't historical
just laugh at them and pray they open there eyes...
dont waste your time, as it says in the Bible, do not debate unless the person is sincerely seeking the truth!... just look at his first sentence to you
"You've been drinking the Christian kool-aid brother."
is this really the kind of thing to say when trying to explain something?.. dont waste your time, its too valuable.
The Davinci code is widely read, translated into numerous languages. Do the facts make it historically accurate? The bible is at once the most widely read book and
the book no one knows very much about it. BTW none of what you said was scientific
@nattyd50 oh my goodness, that is the most fallacious statement I have seen on youtube in a long time. how is it scientifically valid? there is almost no archaeological supporting evidence - most is contradictory in one way or another. textual and form criticism pull it apart all over the shop. we don't even reliably know when it was all written. take the exodus - no supporting evidence. what a vacuous statement. look at it objectively, not with god-goggles on.
The guy being interviewed is using every possible trick in the book to convince himself Jesus was rezzed. Use his method of elimination to believe Osiris was rezzed. You'd come to that conclusion too.
Habermas is good, but he shouldn't argue that more evidence for God is "arm-twisting." I don't think that is Biblical. God gives revelation according to the person. God knows what will convince you, AND He also knows if NOTHING will convince you. People fool themselves, like Reggie to some degree, if they think grand evidence will absolutely convince. Some will never be convinced no matter what.
Guys, two hours of a talk about the evidence for Christianity doesn't make you a Christian. It requires MORE time, effort, and STUDY. So many of you are saying there's no evidence because you haven't taken the time, effort, and study to see what that evidence actually is. Haha, of course you're not convinced after two hours about the claims of Christianity, just like you wouldn't be convinced after 2 hours of talking about how the "holocaust never happened (as some people claim)."
Has Dr. William Lane Craig ever been on this show before? If not, then he should definitely go on some time. I respect the host a lot. He's very balanced and doesn't let his own views and biases take over the interview.
Jesus changed me from a liberal,morally bankrupt wildman,into one who did 180 degree turn towards Heaven.When Jesus changes you then you can see how filthy your own sin is and you know that you need a Savior.Praise Jesus
It boils down to the problem of miracles. The facts, that Gary talked about are quite strong,in that they are agreed to by secular and non secular historians, but if one views miracles as impossible, then obviously the conclusion of the resurrection is impossible. If one sees the possibility of miracles as being real, then one is much more open to seeing the explanation-that God raised Jesus.
Well tons of people claim that people raise back from the dead. We even have zombie movies. Just because you can claim it, doesn't mean it's true. It's not really a miracle either if tons of different cultures also claim the same thing happening to other different people . Jesus's claim of raising from the dead is nothing special.
I don't know of to many cases where people are claimed to come back, perhaps a few, but not very many. Zombie movies, obviously have nothing to do with this. As for claims, that is what history is based on for the most part, claims and things we can't always directly investigate.
Anyways, history is verifiable by multiple sources and hence it's legitimacy. Hearsay from decades ago and a book claiming a person who did magic raising from the dead is not. Don't we have David Blaine for this century?
You still haven't defined what consist of what a miracle is. I can say finding a nickel on the street could be a miracle.
You must have missed the part of the show that talked about the scholars who are atheist, liberal and christian who agree on certain facts concerning the events in question. Now, ones worldview will dictate the conclusion, but the resurrection is the best hypothesis to explain those. Your just throwing this history away because it does not fit your naturalistic worldview.
Naturalism world views are all we have to base reality on. Maybe I should just start making up all sorts of supernatural claims and get a group of people to agree with me. Still won't make it true. There is no history of resurrections actually happening. I also don't know of any scholar atheist that would agree that the event of Jesus's resurrection was taken literally. Try and name me one. Habermas was weak at best. You had to go in with his preconception to be able to believe. That's so stupid
If you had to go in anything with a preconception to believe, hell you can believe in whatever claim what so ever. It's pointless if that's the way to prove something factual as it wouldn't even require evidence. I think you missed the point since Reggie repeatedly pressed him on that point.
And I don't think my post on free will went through.
Belief is not a choice. If there is a god, why will he "twist our arms" when it comes to believing the ocean is mostly water, Alpha Centauri is really far away, and caramel corn is sweeter than regular popcorn (we can't believe otherwise), but refuse to "twist our arms" on something that's supposedly much more important to him.
So either there's no god, or caramel corn is more important than the resurrection. Q.E.D. or get out, bitch.
I couldn't believe how many times Habermas talked about hypothetical arguments and counterarguments without then stating them! C'mon dawg, give the strongest arguments, the strongest counter-arguments, then demolish the counter-arguments. It's that simple, and we don't need to say we were talking after a football game. The place and time doesn't matter; I want the logic and the evidence, so cut the shit.
I'm waiting to hear just one born-again (above the age of nine) say "I was born into a Christian home, I got saved at age eight, and I've been a devoted follower of Jesus Christ ever since". But there's always gotta be some shit ("I dabbled in Buddhism" like Habermas, "I wasn't REALLY a Christian", "I was an atheist until I was 19", etc.), even if statistics don't bear that out with most of the population.
Hey. I asked jesus into my heart at the age of eight and was a christian ever since untill the age of 34. I was a full 'personal relationship with Jesus' christian. Quite serious about it all all my life. Now I am atheist though....oh well
Yeah. I have yet to hear someone trying to convince others to accept Jesus say that they've been a full-fledged Christian their whole life. So my message is "Cut the crap. Your arguments should stand on their own."
I don't even know why Christian use their own personal revelation as evidence. If god wanted us to believe, he would give us personal revelation such as the one he gave the others. That or there is no god, as least the Christian version. Then again, there's no evidence for any god. When he decides to show himself/herself,itself? , then I will worry about it. No going to play hide and seek like that. Until then, I might as well worship swiss cheese as it bears the same results.
"there's no evidence for any god" - Careful, that's self-defeating. To claim that there is no evidence for God is to claim that you have absolute knowledge that no such evidence exists. You would be claiming to have seen ALL evidences prior to making such a judgment. Therefore I think what you mean is that you have not SEEN any evidence that CONVINCES you enough to say that God exists.
"When he decides to show himself" - Technically, God ALREADY did that when Jesus came to earth. ;)
You assumed Jesus is god's son and assuming that god exists. You are the one that needs to examine things instead of going on preconceptions of claims already supporting your view.
You also do not have absolute knowledge that god exists either. Unfortunately for you, in reality, there is no occurrence of supernaturalism events like ones claim to be god's doing so there really isn't any evidence for god except claims from books. Let me know when he decides to stop playing hide and seek.
"You assumed Jesus is god's son and assuming that god exists." - a012345, there's a huge difference between granting something for the sake of argument and holding a presupposition. I'm granting it for sake of argument. If Christianity is true, then logically God already let people know that He is real by sending Jesus to the earth.
"Unfortunately for you, in reality, there is no occurrence of supernaturalism events like ones claim to be god's doing" - Do you know ALL events that have occurred?
"Do you know ALL events that have occurred?" -BassP86
No, do you? So we must plead ignorance now and assume god did it? Tell me, when is the last time you seen someone die and raise from the day 3 days later or heal the sick and cripple by touching them? Sorry but in reality, those things don't happen regardless of how much your fairy tale tells you so. I never seen 3 pigs and a wolf have battles over property either.
"Sorry but in reality, those things don't happen regardless of how much your fairy tale tells you so." - Precisely my point, bro. How do you KNOW that such events have NEVER occurred, if you yourself just ADMITTED that you DON'T KNOW all events that have EVER occurred?
You must have selective reading. YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER. You just fail to admit it. The problem is, reality is in my favor of my worldview. When your car doesn't start, you don't automatically assume it's supernatural at work. Maybe Jebus doesn't want you to work or have that hot date? You might start by checking the oil, gas or engine first. Thinking supernatural causing it cuz some book told you so is just beyond stupidity because you already given up thinking about it rationally and logically
YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER. You're missing my point. With an absolute negative an ABSOLUTE amount of the subject must exist prior to making the statement.. With an absolute positive however, the amount of absolute knowledge ONLY requires at least the BARE MINIMUM. Ex: If I were to claim, There is NO such thing as a Giant Panda (given the definition) that exists in Africa, I am claiming to have absolute knowledge on ALL of Africa, not part of it.
(cont.) Therefore I am required to look EVERYWHERE in Africa to show that the entire place is uninhabited by Giant Pandas to make my claim valid. But If I were to claim, There IS such a thing as a Giant Panda that exists in Africa, I am ONLY required to show that there is AT LEAST ONE Giant Panda in Africa. After showing the bare minimum, I am NOT required look any further in Africa to make my claim valid, even though I may still chose to do so.
(cont.) The same applies with God. If I claim, "There is NO God," I must look EVERYWHERE in ALL realms of reality. But if I claim "There IS a God" I have to find only the BARE MINIMUM required, even though I may still choose to go BEYOND the bare minimum. a012345, absolute positives are ONLY self-defeating if claim it has evidence but have NOTHING to present. Absolute negatives are ALWAYS self-defeating. Your position IS self-defeating.
You're claiming you must have absolute knowledge to know anything which is totally stupid. You have a mother, can you absolutely proof that she is your mother? Is there anything you can prove 100%? How would you know? If that's the case, I can totally dismiss any and everything you say since you don't have absolute knowledge as well. Stupid stupid argument which doesn't support your position at all. At the most it makes us both agnostic which is the point I been making that WE BOTH DON'T KNOW.
"You're claiming you must have absolute knowledge to know anything" - Strawman. I never claimed that. I said that when a person claims an absolute negative THEY ARE CLAIMING TO POSSESS ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE ON ALL THINGS THAT ARE IN THE GIVEN CATEGORY STATED IN THE CLAIM. This is completely different from saying that one MUST have absolute knowledge to know anything.
That's not a strawman. That is what you are claiming as a criteria for me to not know a god made everything. You would have to follow the same criteria to know he did. You don't get to have some special double standard. Go study some fallacies, sheesh. If you want strawman? How about your sudden turn on attacking science's principality now? I saying we both "don't know" is a valid stance. You can't prove it nor can I completely disprove it. Science has better things to do than to disprove god.
"You don't get to have some special double standard." - Ah, you're forgetting the aciident fallacy which CLEARLY states that one CANNOT apply a general rule to a case to which the general rule does not or should not apply. Don't tell me I need to study fallacies. I've taken logic for 2 years, my friend.
Oh no 2 years. You're more awesome than Socrates and Nietchze. Sit back down and go repeat your courses. You failed to even make sound premises for your argument.
"I can totally dismiss any and everything you say since you don't have absolute knowledge as well." - Are you saying that we can NEVER have absolute knowledge on ANYTHING?
OMG that MUST prove god exists. I am convinced. Praise Horus!!!! Please stop being so stupid. I guess I fell for that stupid apologetic argument used over and over. Knowledge itself is also relative, let's just go cry in the corner.
a012345, I don't appreciate your immature behavior. It's a serious question. If there are no absolutes, then logically it is NOT absolutely true that there are no absolutes. You're violating the law of noncontradiction and are committing a self-defeating position. Therefore you MUST admit that the ONLY option is there ARE absolutes. Seriously bro, THINK & stop throwing around all this hearsay that you get from antitheists/relativists. You're just accepting these things without critical analysis.
I don't appreciate your deceptive intent of purposely avoiding your point and bringing up topic of absolute when it's irrelevant. Think about it "bro". What absolute can you point out that makes your case? LOL you're accusing me of hearsay when you asshat copy VERBATIM from Ravi Zacharias. Who do I copy from directly? Copying from someone's weak argument like Ravi isn't "critical analysis". Nothing but a parrot repeating squabble.
When a person claims there are or are no absolutes, then EVERYTHING is defined according to that belief by default. So technically it is relevant. Ravi claims such BECAUSE it is what every human being assumes as tests for truth. You assume something must be logical empirical or experiential for it to be a sufficient for truth. Your own argument proves that you do this yourself. So tell me how that's the same as you accepting what other atheists say without critical analysis.
You should really convert to Scientology instead. Same exact method of execution. Let's make claims, not back them up, quote up tons of nonsense unrelated to the claim, state that I won't accept your "evidence" because I am unwilling and now attack the opposition with unwarranted statements and play on definitions of wordage.
Now stop wasting my time if you simply can't back your original statement.
So how does this advance your point any again beside letting you once again slip by without providing any evidence for your claim? Here's another absolute for you. You'll love it. This is an absolute waste of time. Prove your claims of the supernatural or absolutely please STFU.
I'll be immature then but you're still delusional. Next.
Hmmm how about the fact you claim god exists because Jesus came back? Before you start you have to even define what "god" is. People coming from the dead is a supernatural event as well.
It's my fault I let you off so easily that you can jump around and avoid the topic. You like to jump around when actually challenged to answer for your first claim.
I am still laughing at your double standard absolute knowledge argument.
"how about the fact you claim god exists because Jesus came back?" - You mean when I said that God already showed Himself when He sent Jesus here, right? That's wasn't really the same thing as saying that God exists because it happened. I said that to have you open up within your assumptions.
"Before you start you have to even define what "god" is" - You and I both know what the general understanding of God is. If that is the case, then why would the definition need to be provided again?
I don't know what your definition of god is. I have yet to find anyone with the exact definition and connotations of "god". So, yes we do have to have an disparagement of definition of what we're talking about to begin with. God is just a vague word. You say Jesus and someone else could say Shiva or Odin.
" "When he decides to show himself" - Technically, God ALREADY did that when Jesus came to earth. ;)" -BassP86
Uh, you're the one that proposed that as an evidence to god's existence. So what's my assumption? You might want to go back and actually read what you posted.
"Uh, you're the one that proposed that as an evidence to god's existence." - Actually it went like this: YOU said "when he decides to show himself", which logically presupposes that an evidence for God is Him showing himself. Then I said that technically Jesus was sent here by God. If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then logically God ALREADY showed himself.
I said when he can show himself then at least there's some sort of evidence. Until then, supernatural claims and old inaccurate books written by people that had no understanding of the world doesn't cut it. Zeus showed himself to many Greeks too, even impregnated some. I guess he must exists as well. I see the sun, Apollo must be pulling it across the sky with his chariot.
"I said when he can show himself then at least there's some sort of evidence." - Yet you admitted that you would still reject the evidence regardless, which grants my point.
"Zeus showed himself to many Greeks too, even impregnated some." - All I have to say is: where is the evidence?
"I said when he can show himself then at least there's some sort of evidence." - Yet you admitted that you would still reject the evidence regardless, which grants my point.
Like I said, I don't have to accept any claim you present without evidence. Just because you inject supernatural doesn't mean I have to accept it as valid. Your god is so powerful, he should be able to figure out how to convince non believers. Now magic man went in hiding somehow with his followers to make excuses.
Not to mention, you have zero evidence of this to go by except a book based on hearsay more than a decade later. Still doesn't even remotely prove Jesus is even a god more or less sent by a god or son of god. Don't even mention logic. It's even logically impossible to have a Christian god.
"Not to mention, you have zero evidence" - Haha! I already showed you how claiming there is zero evidence is invalid. Second, according to ancient historians, if a written account is dated at only a few decades after an event/time frame, it is considered a CLOSE account by historic standards. Or are you going to argue that that's not true too?
"It's even logically impossible to have a Christian god." - Don't change the subject. And you're telling me that I'M going off on a tangent. *rolls eyes*
Well, you still have yet to even address your main point from weeks ago. *yawn* Do you really have to waste both our time? You can go live in fairyland with Barney and make believe all you want there. When you have any empirical evidence with no supernatural BS, come back then.
Now, do we have absolute knowledge that other gods don't exists either, do we? Why not believe in Mithra instead? He died for world peace and he loves you too. Maybe Shiva and Odin are having a party in space. I don't have absolute knowledge they don't either. Now how would you decide which to believe based on that system you proposed?
"Why not believe in Mithra instead?" - Mithraism COPIED Christianity, plus there's been no presented accountable evidence for even close to HALF of the claims it makes.
"Now how would you decide which to believe based on that system you proposed?" - Haha! Dude, you've completely misunderstood my argument about absolute knowledge. You're claiming that what I'm saying is a double standard. How is it a double standard?
Mithraism started 100 years before Christ, but existed until 500 A.D. This logically assumes that Mithraism did not adopt its major similarities to Xianity until the time of/after that Jesus came. Plus we have no documentary accounts found for most of the similarities such as 12 disciples. The only tales that even come close to this describe Mirtha travelling with a companion on one trip, 2 companions on another trip, and some farm animals on another trip. Trust me, I've done the research.
100 years? Try 1000 years plus. Mithra was just a god amongst others in ancient religions. It just wasn't practiced as its own religion till much later. You could have google this and found out. You obviously haven't done your research.
I can't trust you as you can't answer you original question and jump around all over trying to avoid answer it.
"100 years?" - Yep. That's such an obvious piece of historical information, that even wikipedia has it on their page. It's 1000 years plus, then you're not going by the actual written accounts for Mithraism. I prefer to go wherever the evidence leads, not make blatant unsupported claims.
Nope. You can't just omit it because it's not written. There are even temples of Mithra that old.
"I prefer to go wherever the evidence leads,not make blatant unsupported claims"
Good. When are you actually going to start? So far you just accept Christianity on any claim and omit all others based on that it's not Christianity. That is just blatantly disingenuous.
"It just wasn't practiced as its own religion till much later." - Ah, so you're finally getting to the heart of the matter. Now my question for you is, how can you conclude that Mithraism had so many similarities to Christianity BEFORE Christianity came into being, if you yourself ADMIT that Mithraism wasn't practiced until much later? Wouldn't that include that Mithraism did not have its similarities to Christianity until much later too?
It wasn't practiced as a main stream religion on its own. You do know it was a Zoroastrianism god long before it branched off. Still predates your Jebus and gave him plenty of time to copy. Old age still doesn't prove your supernatural claims nor god's existence. Give it up and stop wasting my time. You just want to keep avoiding. Go preach delusion to your own flock so they can rub your ego and yell AMEN!!
I must have absolute knowledge to not believe but yet it's okay to base claims as truth? Come on. Seriously?? I would pretty much have to believe in every religion in existence. Your Christianity is not special. In fact, it's pretty bland in content compared to other religions. I guess it makes up for it with murder, slavery and rape. But let's try to stick to the original topic before you go or make me go off on another tangent.
"There were also no presented accountable evidence for Christianity either." - This is false. There are 17 secular historian sources outside of the Bible that talk of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Care to hear what they are?
You know you basic did say the same thing except you reword it. Now how would you prove "absolute" existence of anything else besides oneself as Descartes put forth? I don't even know why I am still humoring you with this since your premise was about "absolute knowledge", not absolutes as a definition. It's just a concept and knowledge itself is relative. Apologetic just like to attribute anything they can to their super sky daddy. I am sure he bowls 300 every game too.
"you basic did say the same thing except you reword it." - You're misunderstanding Descartes' argument. He claimed that if you can't doubt anything without thinking about it, then you must exist. This means you're the cause of thoughts. But this is false. If you are always thinking of something then you not the cause of thoughts, but are DEPENDENT or BOUND by thoughts.
There's a big difference between thoughts and making a claim. If you exist, then logically the only way that you can EVER make a CLAIM or state a BELIEF is if you exist. BELIEFS or CLAIMS are dependent on our existence. These are not the same as thoughts. Beliefs and claims are when you make JUDGMENTS on the thoughts. Therefore I must exist in order to make a claim. Therefore if I don't exist, then logically I can't make the CLAIM "I don't exist" unless I DO exist. Therefore I exist.
Easy: If you claim that you do not exist, then logically you MUST exist in order to claim it, which contradicts the statement itself. Therefore you DO exist.
Just because we don't know doesn't mean YOUR god did it. In fact, any god or supernatural causing it is just a cope out to fill the gap of unknown. We have ALWAYS found a natural explanation of things in the past that was once thought cause by a god or supernatural. Lighting is a good example. How many people still believe that it's because it's Thor or Zeus still causing it? We never disproved them either. Should we start worshiping them again too?Stop living in a fairy tale and embrace reality
"Just because we don't know doesn't mean YOUR god did it." - So far that's the most valid claim you've made, bro. Just because one doesn't know what caused Y doesn't mean entity X is responsible for its causation.
"In fact, any god or supernatural causing it is just a cope out to fill the gap of unknown." - Are you saying that if we go by what SCIENCE tells us, then science has no boundaries or limitations?
Yes science does have limitations. It can't just make shit up that it can't proof and slap a supernatural label on it. Science can't also rely on faith to prove itself true. What's the point that science has limitations? You know a better method of testing reality and fundamentals of the real world?
"Yes science does have limitations." - Okay, so that means that science can't go past the Big Bang, BECAUSE of it's limitations. Therefore the God proposal is not a copout. Anytime you claim "I don't know", you presuppose a naturalistic or scientific framework, excluding a supernatural framework in the process. Therefore saying "I don't know" to things that science is NOT SUPPOSED OR MADE to explain, is an appeal to ignorance.
I don't know is not an appeal to ignorance but the first step of discovery. You only seek the explanation of things you don't know the process of. You assume that biological things are made, how? Explain the process of how your god made these things since you claim that is explanation. If you can't, then yes, it is a cope out and an appeal to ignorance. Also, point out ANYTHING in reality that doesn't fit in frameworks of naturalistic explanation.
"You only seek the explanation of things you don't know the process of." - So everything goes through a process? The Laws of Logic don't work that way.
"It can't just make shit up that it can't proof and slap a supernatural label on it." - I never said it could. If science has limitations, then logically it is not supposed to answer ALL questions including supernatural ones. The reason I asked you the question was to make sure you understood this.
"Science can't also rely on faith" - Yet SCIENTISTS like Dawkins take a position of faith when it comes to claiming that science is the ONLY way of attaining truth, that it will give all the answers.
"empirical evidence" - Empirical evidence isn't inherently scientific. Ex: History. You use an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT criteria to verify historical events. I honestly thought you knew this.
For one, the source of the authors were not well known. The books do not match with comptempary historians at that time. They wrote the books from hearsay. The books of the bible were tempered with and selected based on an authoritative power. It's been mistranslated and added to numerous times. People can base it to mean different things based on their personal denomination. The claims in the book doesn't match with reality and natural laws but more with fairy tales. Do I really need to go on?
"do not match with comptempary historians at that time." - That's a bad objection since the resurrection claims of other "pre-Christian" religions are not found in any written account prior to 2nd Cent. A.D. Hardly ANY ancient events match contemporary historians at the time, with only a few exceptions such as some direct relationships to individuals involved in those events.
"tempered with and selected based on an authoritative power." - There's actually almost no evidence that supports this.
So what you're telling me is god with his infinite powers must wait for a decade for people to write about him from hearsay? Joseph Smith was an illiterate and he did better than that. Come on.
Liberty Univ. LOL !!!
MaitreyaRocket 9 months ago
That was a mutuially respectful debate, I enjoyed it. Sadly, those don't tend to exist in the real world. What I learned, nobody can convince anyone of anything if thier opponent is well educated enough. Interesting idea though. If God is real, and people claim to have a relationship with him there is nothing that can change there oppenions. On the contrary, it would seem that ether side can feel competly confident in thier belief. It's an argument that can't end, I guess.
jestern001 9 months ago
@jestern001 - It ends when creationists stop being dishonest ...
MaitreyaRocket 9 months ago
@MaitreyaRocket intelligent response?
jestern001 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
John 3: 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
byfaithalone100 10 months ago
ok I'm convinced the Resurrection is true HISTORICALLY! but how in my opinion most of history is false anyway! I mean Japan and Germany could be the good guys in WW2 for all you know!! History is written by the WInners!
unprofessionalvids 10 months ago
Oh shit i thought this was the smart habermas, lol. That would have been fucking crazy
underpantsjihad 11 months ago
I would just ask a simple question: "why is the savior of mankind a Jew from Israel"...why not from China, Germany, or America?
tuffydeuce 1 year ago
@tuffydeuce because of the prophecies in the bible required him to be so
StarRonKid 10 months ago
@tuffydeuce
Why would it be relevant his place of birth to the belief he happens to be a savior of a variety of ethnic and linguistic groups? This is similar to the objection that Buddha was Nepali, or Mohammad was Arab, or Zoroaster was Bactrian... does it really matter?
smartwarlord 9 months ago
OK , let's assume the Resurrection happened. Was it a real sacrifice for God to give His Son's life to save the sins of Mankind , knowing His Son would be sitting next to him again in just 3 days ??? Had God sacrificed His Son, never to see Him again, in order to save the sins of Mankind. NOW THAT'S a Sacrafice. Think about it !
kennyg99 1 year ago
when talking about the question of free will, you should have brought up not only omniscience, but also omnipotence..because if he can only see the future, it doesnt necessarily mean he created that future or has the power to change it, thus i think we have free will.however.if he is all powerful AND all knowing, then i think by definition free will is impossible because he CREATED us knowing full well what we were going to do.but great show, i love how everyone can talk openly and respectfully
mfjeff 1 year ago
The thing is Christians are always using archaeology to say "well we found an ancient village mentioned in the Bible so it must all be true" when I think so what if the place was real? It doesn't mean there was ever an "invisible sky wizard" named God.
point made end of discution
MultiRaistlin 1 year ago
I don't expect anybody here to believe me on blind faith but with my experiences with the paranormal made me believe in an afterlife. The reason I know I am not crazy is because 2 of my friends witnessed the same event with me at the same time.
Heres what happened.... the three of us were in my house and then the master bedroom door started opening and slamming harder and faster than what a human would be able to do, All 3 of us witnessed this, and this happend after a couple of recent deaths.
SCSultan88 1 year ago
A probabilistic argument for a one-time suspension of natural laws? Hmm...
hymnofashes 1 year ago
Stupid funky music.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty Ignore comment. sorry.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
what about the naghammadi texts? stories written about jesus that were rejected. such as the gospel of thomas and other writings. because it was written down doesnt make it true.
JAYFORJAY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. Psalm 14:1. knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." 2 Peter 3:3-4.
OneGodApostolic238 1 year ago
the problem with your guess jeremy atheist is that back then you could only record it it with eyewitness accounts and history documentation. all the events surrounding the ressurection brings us to a good conclusion. the radical and sudden belief in a group of people following judaism, the empty tomb of Jesus and the post ressurecction recordings (written ofcourse)
muhammed didnt use accounts of people, or facts....he used a sword and pointed it around.....read your history.
StLukey7 1 year ago
@StLukey7 That's right brother.
nattyd50 1 year ago
We can destroy atheist's 'logic' but you are to busy calling names
phoobarr 1 year ago
Habermas is great got the infedel guy all agree and stuff ha ha ha ahhaa! Btw, very strong case for resurrection. In the end, if God exist then believers won the game. If not, we all can party.
businessman20 1 year ago
interesting video.....
scholarship is the way to go....find out the origin of whatever and work from there. A lotta people refer to the Bible as a whole, which I think is a mistake, whether he be Christian or non-believer.
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
Gary is so impressive.
CroatianHercegovina 2 years ago
Reggie's a very sharp fellow. But, as I said, he needs to refine his argumentation a bit- namely in pacing and turn-taking (and it's an art form, so I don't expect it to come easily- and some are savants, when it comes to this particular skill) but that doesn't truly strike at the merits of either debater- this is moreso theatrics. The attention of the American public, and the sake of time, are gods we must all defer and sacrifice to, apparently, when it comes to debate in our modern age.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
I am a Christian, but I thoroughly enjoy anyone who generously, and fairly engages in the marketplace of ideas, and I really enjoyed this. You will not find on the side of, say, Islam, this kind of show and tell, and friendly discussion- I'm sorry for, and ashamed of the hostile "God-said-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it" types who attack you guys, ad hominem, in the atheist/agnostic crowd. Reggie's a great host- my only criticism is he gets bogged down in defining terms, overmuch.
sorenkierkegaard2008 2 years ago
Our individual choices partly depend on the choices we as a society or all societys collectively make and have made throughout history -- Therefore the effects of these choices can cause us to choose in a certain way which would exclude everyting else. That is not free will. That is karma. We are all linked to oneanother and that is why we would be better off living in peace with ourselves with nature and each other. That is a choise we have to make independently yet together
heartthief313 2 years ago
NINJAS WALK ON WATER TOO...
heartthief313 2 years ago
Hey man if you really do not believe in God or a Almighty being.....let me ask you one question ... Go search in the bible because on the net you wont find what I will tell ya....Do you believe in yourself?...and if your answer is yes then you believe in God....and go and search in the bible for the sentence Do you believe in God!??!
Awertdg 2 years ago
/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U
TheHonestTheist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts. 2.38)
Jedidiah960 2 years ago
oh and to the infidel guy: methodological naturalism has really only been rationally abandoned in EMPIRICAL sciences, not historical sciences.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"Im still waiting for the evidence..."
what sort of evidence would you need?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Thanks Infidelguy! MUST SEE video.google The Money Masters, The Brotherhood of Darkness, JT Gatto State Education, Expelled, Global Warming or Global Governance, The Fluoride Deception, The Truth About Vaccines, The Science and Politics of Cancer, The Marijuana Conspiracy, Global Nuclear Coverup ...
stupidtreehugger 3 years ago
Honestly, many of you are right, substantial evidence cannot be obtained to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus did, in fact, come to earth, to die and be ressurected. Thus, I find it difficult to impose on you my beliefs through logical argument alone. However, I had, what I believe to be, a tangible and real personal experience with God, which I hope you will all experience as well at one stage. Before that happens, arguing with all of you will bring us nowhere. I believe a, you believe b
juniortee 3 years ago
"However, I had, what I believe to be, a tangible and real personal experience with God"
How do you respond to Muslims who have a "relationship" with Allah? Does that mean Allah is real?
You cannot have a relationship with an imaginary being. You're suffering a delusion.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago 2
allah and god are the same thing. and no, 90% of the world is not suffering a delusion
POWNAGE27 2 years ago
Allah and what God? Certainly not The God our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Even if you don't believe in Christ, Allah and Jesus' teachings are completely different.
enocht100 2 years ago
Allah is the Arabic word for God.
Youlube32 2 years ago
Yes I understand and know that. Just making sure we dont get the two mixed up.
enocht100 2 years ago
If Jesus Christ NEVER resurrected from dead every Christian is going to Hell.
Circulations of pagan rising and dying gods appeared by 150 AD. That's more than hundred years after Christianity.
The resurrection is recorded and an acutal event in history.
POC777 3 years ago
"The resurrection is recorded and an acutal event in history. "
Yeah and Muhammed supposedly was visited by an angel in a cave. It was recorded. Does that make it history?
If the story sounds outrageously stupid, it probably is.
Atheistjeremy 3 years ago 2
Your argumentation sounds outrageously stupid... it most definately is.
Hydragurum 2 years ago
He also flew to Jerusalem on a magical horse.
This is a recorded event in history.
It's also hilariously stupid and never happened.
LordOmberus 2 years ago
I concur.
Atheistjeremy 2 years ago
You could also say that Julius Caesar never existed. That doesn't make you correct. Maybe you should consider making sound comments instead of childish remarks.
enocht100 2 years ago
There is corroborating evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.
LordOmberus 2 years ago
Ok what about the over 6000 manuscripts and portions of manuscripts of the New Testament including secular works like that of Josephus. Might I add that those manuscripts where not all written by one team of men but by many men recording the History of Christ and His Apostles and His Church, including the teachings of Paul. Isn't it funny how thwy corroborate each other. how many manuscripts are there of Julius Caesar's Galic Wars, less than 12.
enocht100 2 years ago
Even Josephus was writing from hearsay and rumors, and likely never met a single person who witnessed the nonevents about which he was writing.
Captializing Every second Word doesn't Actually Make your Sentence More Official Sounding.
LordOmberus 2 years ago
Might I add that some of the New Testament manuscripts/earliest copy, we have date as far back as 2 1/2 decades after the original. Julius Caesar's Galic Wars earliest copy 1000 years after the original. What about the writings of Socrates, we have no copies. Plato told us what we know about him. Did you know that the writings of the New Testament can be reproduced to within 12 verses from the writings of the early Church fathers.How is that for corroboration.
enocht100 2 years ago 2
Might I also add that the existence of Caesar doesn't actually detract from the lessons he taught, even less so for Socrates.
There's also the little matter that Caesar claimed to have built a really awesome bridge, while Christophiles claim that Jesus not only cursed a fig tree and walked on water, but brought the dead back to life and magically transformed water into wine. We wouldn't believe this if we heard it about a guy who's alive NOW, let alone someone two thousand years ago.
LordOmberus 2 years ago
@enocht100
Pity it has so many ridiculous claims about virgin born sky gods doing party tricks and raising from the dead after being crucified.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
@mojorhythm Is there something specific you are trying to say? Or just ranting?
enocht100 1 year ago
@enocht100
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. While you might be correct about all the things you said above, it still is nowhere near the amount of evidence needed to justify the ridiculous claims in the Bible.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
@mojorhythm Funny you say that. I wonder how much evidence a person needs because when we learn of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and he is burning in hell and sees Abraham, he asks him to send Lazarus to tell his brothers who are still alive of the torment he is in. He tells him simply that it wont matter if someone raises from the dead, if they first wont believe the Word they already have.
You have all the evidence you need, the testimony of nature and the light of your conscious.
enocht100 1 year ago
@enocht100
This argument is a double edged sword. I could reverse engineer it, put a different god in and see if you find it convincing, for example: "You have all the evidence for Zeus you need, the testimony of nature and the light of your conscience".
"You have all the evidence for Allah you need, the testimony of nature and the light of your conscience".
"You have all the evidence of Vishnu you need, the testimony of nature and the light of your conscience".
And so on and so forth.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
@mojorhythm Did you know that just on a scientific note and making a case for historical validity, that the bible is the most Historically accurate document in the world.? It is the most read book and the one translated into the most languages. I guess most of the human beings on the planet are idiots...except for you of course.
nattyd50 1 year ago
@nattyd50 You've been drinking the Christian kool-aid brother.
The Gospels were written by anonymous, evangelical, Greek-speaking persons at least 40 years after the fact. The stories of the Gospels have no external corroborating testimony until Josephus (which lots of scholars believe was forged). The Gospels contradict each other in the wildest possible fashion, and they are loaded with common symbolic motifs such as literary irony, reversal of expectations etc. They are not historical.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
@nattyd50
hey, i read the last comment (mojorhythem) wrote to you, which is just under mine, and wow.. lol this is clearly someone who is ignorant of the truth!.. im not even going to directly comment him because his comment was just too stupid for me to react on... the Bible was actually written 12 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus, and it was written by first hand people who met and seen Jesus, who WITNESSED his miracles.. these people like (mojorhythem) my friend are
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@nattyd50
are honestly just too foolish and retarded for you to put your brain with.. lol these are the people who believe in Alexander the great and everything he did, but choose not to believe in Jesus and what he did, even though alexander the great was born 500 years before Jesus and his first writings didnt come until 400 years after his death by only TWO MEN named Arion and Plutarch.. these people embarrass themselves by saying the Bible can not be used as evidence or isn't historical
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nattyd50
just laugh at them and pray they open there eyes...
dont waste your time, as it says in the Bible, do not debate unless the person is sincerely seeking the truth!... just look at his first sentence to you
"You've been drinking the Christian kool-aid brother."
is this really the kind of thing to say when trying to explain something?.. dont waste your time, its too valuable.
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@nattyd50
im not even going to directly comment him because his comment was just too stupid for me to react on DIRECTLY***.. forgot to put that in there!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@nattyd50
The Davinci code is widely read, translated into numerous languages. Do the facts make it historically accurate? The bible is at once the most widely read book and
the book no one knows very much about it. BTW none of what you said was scientific
0spiker 1 year ago
@nattyd50 oh my goodness, that is the most fallacious statement I have seen on youtube in a long time. how is it scientifically valid? there is almost no archaeological supporting evidence - most is contradictory in one way or another. textual and form criticism pull it apart all over the shop. we don't even reliably know when it was all written. take the exodus - no supporting evidence. what a vacuous statement. look at it objectively, not with god-goggles on.
johnnyp76 1 year ago
The guy being interviewed is using every possible trick in the book to convince himself Jesus was rezzed. Use his method of elimination to believe Osiris was rezzed. You'd come to that conclusion too.
metrx330 3 years ago
Habermas is good, but he shouldn't argue that more evidence for God is "arm-twisting." I don't think that is Biblical. God gives revelation according to the person. God knows what will convince you, AND He also knows if NOTHING will convince you. People fool themselves, like Reggie to some degree, if they think grand evidence will absolutely convince. Some will never be convinced no matter what.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
And to support what I said, all you have to do is read what Jesus said in Luke 16:27-31. Grand evidence does not necessarily convince.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
umm ok
uhh wow this video has 2 be one of the Silliest and sexiest vids online. just like me! Fu
chicky123sb 3 years ago
Guys, two hours of a talk about the evidence for Christianity doesn't make you a Christian. It requires MORE time, effort, and STUDY. So many of you are saying there's no evidence because you haven't taken the time, effort, and study to see what that evidence actually is. Haha, of course you're not convinced after two hours about the claims of Christianity, just like you wouldn't be convinced after 2 hours of talking about how the "holocaust never happened (as some people claim)."
BassP86 3 years ago
Has Dr. William Lane Craig ever been on this show before? If not, then he should definitely go on some time. I respect the host a lot. He's very balanced and doesn't let his own views and biases take over the interview.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
Jesus changed me from a liberal,morally bankrupt wildman,into one who did 180 degree turn towards Heaven.When Jesus changes you then you can see how filthy your own sin is and you know that you need a Savior.Praise Jesus
CBALLEN 3 years ago
Change back, you come back to reality with the rest of us!!!
a012345 3 years ago
Once you know the truth you can't unknow it.
CBALLEN 3 years ago
Then I guess you were never a liberal, morally bankrupt wildman. You were who you always were, a liberal, morally bankrupt religious non thinker.
a012345 3 years ago
How does "going to heaven," whatever that means, solve anything? Suppose, for example, you get to heaven, then you choose to rebel against god.
advancedatheist 3 years ago
Not only will we have new bodies but also new minds that will be like God's mind.We will be made better that the Angels.
CBALLEN 3 years ago
It boils down to the problem of miracles. The facts, that Gary talked about are quite strong,in that they are agreed to by secular and non secular historians, but if one views miracles as impossible, then obviously the conclusion of the resurrection is impossible. If one sees the possibility of miracles as being real, then one is much more open to seeing the explanation-that God raised Jesus.
babystinky 3 years ago
What would you consider a miracle and not coincidences or strings of events that just happen?
a012345 3 years ago
Well in this case a miracle would be the return of a dead man to life.
babystinky 3 years ago
Well tons of people claim that people raise back from the dead. We even have zombie movies. Just because you can claim it, doesn't mean it's true. It's not really a miracle either if tons of different cultures also claim the same thing happening to other different people . Jesus's claim of raising from the dead is nothing special.
a012345 3 years ago
I don't know of to many cases where people are claimed to come back, perhaps a few, but not very many. Zombie movies, obviously have nothing to do with this. As for claims, that is what history is based on for the most part, claims and things we can't always directly investigate.
babystinky 3 years ago
People raising from the dead are zombies.
Anyways, history is verifiable by multiple sources and hence it's legitimacy. Hearsay from decades ago and a book claiming a person who did magic raising from the dead is not. Don't we have David Blaine for this century?
You still haven't defined what consist of what a miracle is. I can say finding a nickel on the street could be a miracle.
a012345 3 years ago
You must have missed the part of the show that talked about the scholars who are atheist, liberal and christian who agree on certain facts concerning the events in question. Now, ones worldview will dictate the conclusion, but the resurrection is the best hypothesis to explain those. Your just throwing this history away because it does not fit your naturalistic worldview.
babystinky 3 years ago
Naturalism world views are all we have to base reality on. Maybe I should just start making up all sorts of supernatural claims and get a group of people to agree with me. Still won't make it true. There is no history of resurrections actually happening. I also don't know of any scholar atheist that would agree that the event of Jesus's resurrection was taken literally. Try and name me one. Habermas was weak at best. You had to go in with his preconception to be able to believe. That's so stupid
a012345 3 years ago
If you had to go in anything with a preconception to believe, hell you can believe in whatever claim what so ever. It's pointless if that's the way to prove something factual as it wouldn't even require evidence. I think you missed the point since Reggie repeatedly pressed him on that point.
a012345 3 years ago
And I don't think my post on free will went through.
Belief is not a choice. If there is a god, why will he "twist our arms" when it comes to believing the ocean is mostly water, Alpha Centauri is really far away, and caramel corn is sweeter than regular popcorn (we can't believe otherwise), but refuse to "twist our arms" on something that's supposedly much more important to him.
So either there's no god, or caramel corn is more important than the resurrection. Q.E.D. or get out, bitch.
Eyedunno 3 years ago
Anyway, final assessment. The show sucked.
I couldn't believe how many times Habermas talked about hypothetical arguments and counterarguments without then stating them! C'mon dawg, give the strongest arguments, the strongest counter-arguments, then demolish the counter-arguments. It's that simple, and we don't need to say we were talking after a football game. The place and time doesn't matter; I want the logic and the evidence, so cut the shit.
Eyedunno 3 years ago
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't understand why Christians all seem to need street cred. Heh.
Eyedunno 3 years ago
I'm waiting to hear just one born-again (above the age of nine) say "I was born into a Christian home, I got saved at age eight, and I've been a devoted follower of Jesus Christ ever since". But there's always gotta be some shit ("I dabbled in Buddhism" like Habermas, "I wasn't REALLY a Christian", "I was an atheist until I was 19", etc.), even if statistics don't bear that out with most of the population.
Eyedunno 3 years ago
Hey. I asked jesus into my heart at the age of eight and was a christian ever since untill the age of 34. I was a full 'personal relationship with Jesus' christian. Quite serious about it all all my life. Now I am atheist though....oh well
cjunk351 3 years ago
Yeah. I have yet to hear someone trying to convince others to accept Jesus say that they've been a full-fledged Christian their whole life. So my message is "Cut the crap. Your arguments should stand on their own."
Eyedunno 3 years ago
I don't even know why Christian use their own personal revelation as evidence. If god wanted us to believe, he would give us personal revelation such as the one he gave the others. That or there is no god, as least the Christian version. Then again, there's no evidence for any god. When he decides to show himself/herself,itself? , then I will worry about it. No going to play hide and seek like that. Until then, I might as well worship swiss cheese as it bears the same results.
a012345 3 years ago
"there's no evidence for any god" - Careful, that's self-defeating. To claim that there is no evidence for God is to claim that you have absolute knowledge that no such evidence exists. You would be claiming to have seen ALL evidences prior to making such a judgment. Therefore I think what you mean is that you have not SEEN any evidence that CONVINCES you enough to say that God exists.
"When he decides to show himself" - Technically, God ALREADY did that when Jesus came to earth. ;)
BassP86 3 years ago
You assumed Jesus is god's son and assuming that god exists. You are the one that needs to examine things instead of going on preconceptions of claims already supporting your view.
You also do not have absolute knowledge that god exists either. Unfortunately for you, in reality, there is no occurrence of supernaturalism events like ones claim to be god's doing so there really isn't any evidence for god except claims from books. Let me know when he decides to stop playing hide and seek.
a012345 3 years ago
"You assumed Jesus is god's son and assuming that god exists." - a012345, there's a huge difference between granting something for the sake of argument and holding a presupposition. I'm granting it for sake of argument. If Christianity is true, then logically God already let people know that He is real by sending Jesus to the earth.
"Unfortunately for you, in reality, there is no occurrence of supernaturalism events like ones claim to be god's doing" - Do you know ALL events that have occurred?
BassP86 3 years ago
"Do you know ALL events that have occurred?" -BassP86
No, do you? So we must plead ignorance now and assume god did it? Tell me, when is the last time you seen someone die and raise from the day 3 days later or heal the sick and cripple by touching them? Sorry but in reality, those things don't happen regardless of how much your fairy tale tells you so. I never seen 3 pigs and a wolf have battles over property either.
a012345 3 years ago
"Sorry but in reality, those things don't happen regardless of how much your fairy tale tells you so." - Precisely my point, bro. How do you KNOW that such events have NEVER occurred, if you yourself just ADMITTED that you DON'T KNOW all events that have EVER occurred?
BassP86 3 years ago
You must have selective reading. YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER. You just fail to admit it. The problem is, reality is in my favor of my worldview. When your car doesn't start, you don't automatically assume it's supernatural at work. Maybe Jebus doesn't want you to work or have that hot date? You might start by checking the oil, gas or engine first. Thinking supernatural causing it cuz some book told you so is just beyond stupidity because you already given up thinking about it rationally and logically
a012345 3 years ago
YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER. You're missing my point. With an absolute negative an ABSOLUTE amount of the subject must exist prior to making the statement.. With an absolute positive however, the amount of absolute knowledge ONLY requires at least the BARE MINIMUM. Ex: If I were to claim, There is NO such thing as a Giant Panda (given the definition) that exists in Africa, I am claiming to have absolute knowledge on ALL of Africa, not part of it.
BassP86 3 years ago
(cont.) Therefore I am required to look EVERYWHERE in Africa to show that the entire place is uninhabited by Giant Pandas to make my claim valid. But If I were to claim, There IS such a thing as a Giant Panda that exists in Africa, I am ONLY required to show that there is AT LEAST ONE Giant Panda in Africa. After showing the bare minimum, I am NOT required look any further in Africa to make my claim valid, even though I may still chose to do so.
BassP86 3 years ago
(cont.) The same applies with God. If I claim, "There is NO God," I must look EVERYWHERE in ALL realms of reality. But if I claim "There IS a God" I have to find only the BARE MINIMUM required, even though I may still choose to go BEYOND the bare minimum. a012345, absolute positives are ONLY self-defeating if claim it has evidence but have NOTHING to present. Absolute negatives are ALWAYS self-defeating. Your position IS self-defeating.
BassP86 3 years ago
You're claiming you must have absolute knowledge to know anything which is totally stupid. You have a mother, can you absolutely proof that she is your mother? Is there anything you can prove 100%? How would you know? If that's the case, I can totally dismiss any and everything you say since you don't have absolute knowledge as well. Stupid stupid argument which doesn't support your position at all. At the most it makes us both agnostic which is the point I been making that WE BOTH DON'T KNOW.
a012345 3 years ago
"You're claiming you must have absolute knowledge to know anything" - Strawman. I never claimed that. I said that when a person claims an absolute negative THEY ARE CLAIMING TO POSSESS ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE ON ALL THINGS THAT ARE IN THE GIVEN CATEGORY STATED IN THE CLAIM. This is completely different from saying that one MUST have absolute knowledge to know anything.
BassP86 3 years ago
That's not a strawman. That is what you are claiming as a criteria for me to not know a god made everything. You would have to follow the same criteria to know he did. You don't get to have some special double standard. Go study some fallacies, sheesh. If you want strawman? How about your sudden turn on attacking science's principality now? I saying we both "don't know" is a valid stance. You can't prove it nor can I completely disprove it. Science has better things to do than to disprove god.
a012345 3 years ago
"You don't get to have some special double standard." - Ah, you're forgetting the aciident fallacy which CLEARLY states that one CANNOT apply a general rule to a case to which the general rule does not or should not apply. Don't tell me I need to study fallacies. I've taken logic for 2 years, my friend.
BassP86 3 years ago
*typo: accident fallacy
BassP86 3 years ago
So what's the generalization?
You still to fail to provide any evidence for your god which was your initiate point. It's been a waste of time so far.
a012345 3 years ago
Oh no 2 years. You're more awesome than Socrates and Nietchze. Sit back down and go repeat your courses. You failed to even make sound premises for your argument.
a012345 3 years ago
"I can totally dismiss any and everything you say since you don't have absolute knowledge as well." - Are you saying that we can NEVER have absolute knowledge on ANYTHING?
BassP86 3 years ago
Nope, you can NEVER have absolute knowledge on anything.
a012345 3 years ago
"Nope, you can NEVER have absolute knowledge on anything." - Are you ABSOLUTELY sure?
BassP86 3 years ago
The only absolute is there are no absolutes.
a012345 3 years ago
"The only absolute is there are no absolutes." - Why would you use an absolute to say that there are NONE? ;)
BassP86 3 years ago
OMG that MUST prove god exists. I am convinced. Praise Horus!!!! Please stop being so stupid. I guess I fell for that stupid apologetic argument used over and over. Knowledge itself is also relative, let's just go cry in the corner.
a012345 3 years ago
a012345, I don't appreciate your immature behavior. It's a serious question. If there are no absolutes, then logically it is NOT absolutely true that there are no absolutes. You're violating the law of noncontradiction and are committing a self-defeating position. Therefore you MUST admit that the ONLY option is there ARE absolutes. Seriously bro, THINK & stop throwing around all this hearsay that you get from antitheists/relativists. You're just accepting these things without critical analysis.
BassP86 3 years ago
I don't appreciate your deceptive intent of purposely avoiding your point and bringing up topic of absolute when it's irrelevant. Think about it "bro". What absolute can you point out that makes your case? LOL you're accusing me of hearsay when you asshat copy VERBATIM from Ravi Zacharias. Who do I copy from directly? Copying from someone's weak argument like Ravi isn't "critical analysis". Nothing but a parrot repeating squabble.
a012345 3 years ago
When a person claims there are or are no absolutes, then EVERYTHING is defined according to that belief by default. So technically it is relevant. Ravi claims such BECAUSE it is what every human being assumes as tests for truth. You assume something must be logical empirical or experiential for it to be a sufficient for truth. Your own argument proves that you do this yourself. So tell me how that's the same as you accepting what other atheists say without critical analysis.
BassP86 3 years ago
You should really convert to Scientology instead. Same exact method of execution. Let's make claims, not back them up, quote up tons of nonsense unrelated to the claim, state that I won't accept your "evidence" because I am unwilling and now attack the opposition with unwarranted statements and play on definitions of wordage.
Now stop wasting my time if you simply can't back your original statement.
a012345 3 years ago
So how does this advance your point any again beside letting you once again slip by without providing any evidence for your claim? Here's another absolute for you. You'll love it. This is an absolute waste of time. Prove your claims of the supernatural or absolutely please STFU.
a012345 3 years ago
"Prove your claims of the supernatural or absolutely please STFU." -
1) When you cuss another person out in discussion, you're only sinking to a lower level of immaturity.
2) To which claims are you referring? Please be specific.
BassP86 3 years ago
I'll be immature then but you're still delusional. Next.
Hmmm how about the fact you claim god exists because Jesus came back? Before you start you have to even define what "god" is. People coming from the dead is a supernatural event as well.
It's my fault I let you off so easily that you can jump around and avoid the topic. You like to jump around when actually challenged to answer for your first claim.
I am still laughing at your double standard absolute knowledge argument.
a012345 3 years ago
"how about the fact you claim god exists because Jesus came back?" - You mean when I said that God already showed Himself when He sent Jesus here, right? That's wasn't really the same thing as saying that God exists because it happened. I said that to have you open up within your assumptions.
"Before you start you have to even define what "god" is" - You and I both know what the general understanding of God is. If that is the case, then why would the definition need to be provided again?
BassP86 3 years ago
I don't know what your definition of god is. I have yet to find anyone with the exact definition and connotations of "god". So, yes we do have to have an disparagement of definition of what we're talking about to begin with. God is just a vague word. You say Jesus and someone else could say Shiva or Odin.
a012345 3 years ago
" "When he decides to show himself" - Technically, God ALREADY did that when Jesus came to earth. ;)" -BassP86
Uh, you're the one that proposed that as an evidence to god's existence. So what's my assumption? You might want to go back and actually read what you posted.
a012345 3 years ago
"Uh, you're the one that proposed that as an evidence to god's existence." - Actually it went like this: YOU said "when he decides to show himself", which logically presupposes that an evidence for God is Him showing himself. Then I said that technically Jesus was sent here by God. If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then logically God ALREADY showed himself.
BassP86 3 years ago
I said when he can show himself then at least there's some sort of evidence. Until then, supernatural claims and old inaccurate books written by people that had no understanding of the world doesn't cut it. Zeus showed himself to many Greeks too, even impregnated some. I guess he must exists as well. I see the sun, Apollo must be pulling it across the sky with his chariot.
a012345 3 years ago
"I said when he can show himself then at least there's some sort of evidence." - Yet you admitted that you would still reject the evidence regardless, which grants my point.
"Zeus showed himself to many Greeks too, even impregnated some." - All I have to say is: where is the evidence?
BassP86 3 years ago
Zeus showed himself to many Greeks too, even impregnated some." - All I have to say is: where is the evidence?
Exactly, there is none. Just like your claim for god and Jesus. Books and hearsay doesn't make it true.
a012345 3 years ago
"I said when he can show himself then at least there's some sort of evidence." - Yet you admitted that you would still reject the evidence regardless, which grants my point.
Like I said, I don't have to accept any claim you present without evidence. Just because you inject supernatural doesn't mean I have to accept it as valid. Your god is so powerful, he should be able to figure out how to convince non believers. Now magic man went in hiding somehow with his followers to make excuses.
a012345 3 years ago
Not to mention, you have zero evidence of this to go by except a book based on hearsay more than a decade later. Still doesn't even remotely prove Jesus is even a god more or less sent by a god or son of god. Don't even mention logic. It's even logically impossible to have a Christian god.
a012345 3 years ago
"Not to mention, you have zero evidence" - Haha! I already showed you how claiming there is zero evidence is invalid. Second, according to ancient historians, if a written account is dated at only a few decades after an event/time frame, it is considered a CLOSE account by historic standards. Or are you going to argue that that's not true too?
"It's even logically impossible to have a Christian god." - Don't change the subject. And you're telling me that I'M going off on a tangent. *rolls eyes*
BassP86 3 years ago 2
Well, you still have yet to even address your main point from weeks ago. *yawn* Do you really have to waste both our time? You can go live in fairyland with Barney and make believe all you want there. When you have any empirical evidence with no supernatural BS, come back then.
a012345 3 years ago
Now, do we have absolute knowledge that other gods don't exists either, do we? Why not believe in Mithra instead? He died for world peace and he loves you too. Maybe Shiva and Odin are having a party in space. I don't have absolute knowledge they don't either. Now how would you decide which to believe based on that system you proposed?
a012345 3 years ago
"Why not believe in Mithra instead?" - Mithraism COPIED Christianity, plus there's been no presented accountable evidence for even close to HALF of the claims it makes.
"Now how would you decide which to believe based on that system you proposed?" - Haha! Dude, you've completely misunderstood my argument about absolute knowledge. You're claiming that what I'm saying is a double standard. How is it a double standard?
BassP86 3 years ago
Actually Mithraism existed long before Christianity so I don't see how they copied them.
a012345 3 years ago 2
Mithraism started 100 years before Christ, but existed until 500 A.D. This logically assumes that Mithraism did not adopt its major similarities to Xianity until the time of/after that Jesus came. Plus we have no documentary accounts found for most of the similarities such as 12 disciples. The only tales that even come close to this describe Mirtha travelling with a companion on one trip, 2 companions on another trip, and some farm animals on another trip. Trust me, I've done the research.
BassP86 3 years ago
100 years? Try 1000 years plus. Mithra was just a god amongst others in ancient religions. It just wasn't practiced as its own religion till much later. You could have google this and found out. You obviously haven't done your research.
I can't trust you as you can't answer you original question and jump around all over trying to avoid answer it.
a012345 3 years ago
"100 years?" - Yep. That's such an obvious piece of historical information, that even wikipedia has it on their page. It's 1000 years plus, then you're not going by the actual written accounts for Mithraism. I prefer to go wherever the evidence leads, not make blatant unsupported claims.
BassP86 3 years ago
Nope. You can't just omit it because it's not written. There are even temples of Mithra that old.
"I prefer to go wherever the evidence leads,not make blatant unsupported claims"
Good. When are you actually going to start? So far you just accept Christianity on any claim and omit all others based on that it's not Christianity. That is just blatantly disingenuous.
a012345 3 years ago
"It just wasn't practiced as its own religion till much later." - Ah, so you're finally getting to the heart of the matter. Now my question for you is, how can you conclude that Mithraism had so many similarities to Christianity BEFORE Christianity came into being, if you yourself ADMIT that Mithraism wasn't practiced until much later? Wouldn't that include that Mithraism did not have its similarities to Christianity until much later too?
BassP86 3 years ago
It wasn't practiced as a main stream religion on its own. You do know it was a Zoroastrianism god long before it branched off. Still predates your Jebus and gave him plenty of time to copy. Old age still doesn't prove your supernatural claims nor god's existence. Give it up and stop wasting my time. You just want to keep avoiding. Go preach delusion to your own flock so they can rub your ego and yell AMEN!!
a012345 3 years ago
I must have absolute knowledge to not believe but yet it's okay to base claims as truth? Come on. Seriously?? I would pretty much have to believe in every religion in existence. Your Christianity is not special. In fact, it's pretty bland in content compared to other religions. I guess it makes up for it with murder, slavery and rape. But let's try to stick to the original topic before you go or make me go off on another tangent.
a012345 3 years ago
There were also no presented accountable evidence for Christianity either.
a012345 3 years ago
I should rephrase that. Christianity itself as a religion does exists but the claims it presents has no evidence.
a012345 3 years ago
"There were also no presented accountable evidence for Christianity either." - This is false. There are 17 secular historian sources outside of the Bible that talk of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Care to hear what they are?
BassP86 3 years ago
Really, which 17 secular complementary historians at that time? Or how about you trying to avoid the topic at hand once again?
a012345 3 years ago
While you're at it, give some examples of absolutes without it being an opinion or a label given.
a012345 3 years ago
Here's an easy one: The fact that you EXIST.
BassP86 3 years ago
Now show the steps of how you can prove that to an absolute.
a012345 3 years ago
I can almost feel a Rene Descartes quote coming lol.
a012345 3 years ago
Descartes' quote actually doesn't work because it commits the fallacy of arguing the consequent. So why would I quote him?
BassP86 3 years ago
You know you basic did say the same thing except you reword it. Now how would you prove "absolute" existence of anything else besides oneself as Descartes put forth? I don't even know why I am still humoring you with this since your premise was about "absolute knowledge", not absolutes as a definition. It's just a concept and knowledge itself is relative. Apologetic just like to attribute anything they can to their super sky daddy. I am sure he bowls 300 every game too.
a012345 3 years ago
"you basic did say the same thing except you reword it." - You're misunderstanding Descartes' argument. He claimed that if you can't doubt anything without thinking about it, then you must exist. This means you're the cause of thoughts. But this is false. If you are always thinking of something then you not the cause of thoughts, but are DEPENDENT or BOUND by thoughts.
BassP86 3 years ago
You can't even make the claim without the thought. Sorry, fail.
a012345 3 years ago
There's a big difference between thoughts and making a claim. If you exist, then logically the only way that you can EVER make a CLAIM or state a BELIEF is if you exist. BELIEFS or CLAIMS are dependent on our existence. These are not the same as thoughts. Beliefs and claims are when you make JUDGMENTS on the thoughts. Therefore I must exist in order to make a claim. Therefore if I don't exist, then logically I can't make the CLAIM "I don't exist" unless I DO exist. Therefore I exist.
BassP86 3 years ago
Easy: If you claim that you do not exist, then logically you MUST exist in order to claim it, which contradicts the statement itself. Therefore you DO exist.
BassP86 3 years ago
So when are you actually going to provide anything for your claim beside plagiarizing Ravi Zacharias and reguitatiing apolegitcs websites?
a012345 3 years ago
Just because we don't know doesn't mean YOUR god did it. In fact, any god or supernatural causing it is just a cope out to fill the gap of unknown. We have ALWAYS found a natural explanation of things in the past that was once thought cause by a god or supernatural. Lighting is a good example. How many people still believe that it's because it's Thor or Zeus still causing it? We never disproved them either. Should we start worshiping them again too?Stop living in a fairy tale and embrace reality
a012345 3 years ago
"Just because we don't know doesn't mean YOUR god did it." - So far that's the most valid claim you've made, bro. Just because one doesn't know what caused Y doesn't mean entity X is responsible for its causation.
"In fact, any god or supernatural causing it is just a cope out to fill the gap of unknown." - Are you saying that if we go by what SCIENCE tells us, then science has no boundaries or limitations?
BassP86 3 years ago
Yes science does have limitations. It can't just make shit up that it can't proof and slap a supernatural label on it. Science can't also rely on faith to prove itself true. What's the point that science has limitations? You know a better method of testing reality and fundamentals of the real world?
a012345 3 years ago
"Yes science does have limitations." - Okay, so that means that science can't go past the Big Bang, BECAUSE of it's limitations. Therefore the God proposal is not a copout. Anytime you claim "I don't know", you presuppose a naturalistic or scientific framework, excluding a supernatural framework in the process. Therefore saying "I don't know" to things that science is NOT SUPPOSED OR MADE to explain, is an appeal to ignorance.
BassP86 3 years ago
I don't know is not an appeal to ignorance but the first step of discovery. You only seek the explanation of things you don't know the process of. You assume that biological things are made, how? Explain the process of how your god made these things since you claim that is explanation. If you can't, then yes, it is a cope out and an appeal to ignorance. Also, point out ANYTHING in reality that doesn't fit in frameworks of naturalistic explanation.
a012345 3 years ago
"You only seek the explanation of things you don't know the process of." - So everything goes through a process? The Laws of Logic don't work that way.
BassP86 3 years ago
"It can't just make shit up that it can't proof and slap a supernatural label on it." - I never said it could. If science has limitations, then logically it is not supposed to answer ALL questions including supernatural ones. The reason I asked you the question was to make sure you understood this.
"Science can't also rely on faith" - Yet SCIENTISTS like Dawkins take a position of faith when it comes to claiming that science is the ONLY way of attaining truth, that it will give all the answers.
BassP86 3 years ago
Science is the only way to test natural processes and empirical evidence of the physical world. Dawkins is absolutely right.
a012345 3 years ago
"empirical evidence" - Empirical evidence isn't inherently scientific. Ex: History. You use an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT criteria to verify historical events. I honestly thought you knew this.
BassP86 3 years ago
You were making claims to science so I was rightly so to make that statement. Bible is not a reliable source of history. Fictional book, yes.
a012345 3 years ago
"Bible is not a reliable source of history." - What reasons do you have for this?
BassP86 3 years ago
For one, the source of the authors were not well known. The books do not match with comptempary historians at that time. They wrote the books from hearsay. The books of the bible were tempered with and selected based on an authoritative power. It's been mistranslated and added to numerous times. People can base it to mean different things based on their personal denomination. The claims in the book doesn't match with reality and natural laws but more with fairy tales. Do I really need to go on?
a012345 3 years ago
"do not match with comptempary historians at that time." - That's a bad objection since the resurrection claims of other "pre-Christian" religions are not found in any written account prior to 2nd Cent. A.D. Hardly ANY ancient events match contemporary historians at the time, with only a few exceptions such as some direct relationships to individuals involved in those events.
"tempered with and selected based on an authoritative power." - There's actually almost no evidence that supports this.
BassP86 3 years ago
So what you're telling me is god with his infinite powers must wait for a decade for people to write about him from hearsay? Joseph Smith was an illiterate and he did better than that. Come on.
a012345 3 years ago