Why does god have to be personnel? Creatards think everything is caused by god, not everyone thinks like that, just brainwashed people. Some people see the forces of nature.
I believe in intelligence because there are people who act intelligently, I believe in music because there are people who make music, I believe in ethics because there are people who cooperate to minimize suffering, but sorry, I don't believe in god(s) just because the flock is chanting it.
It just takes a single demonstrable example of those thousand gods that minkind has fantasized up - so, what is the address of this 'person' called god, that supposedly is three in one?
@curiosityversusfaith If you are truly "curious" tell me, how did the image appear on the shroud of Turin? Modern science can't answer. Beside that, everything in the universe is contingent until you get to the "big-bang" (a theory that was first thought of by a Catholic priest & physicist, Fr. Le Maitre) Everything is intelligible and made from intelligible information, so much so as to allow life on our planet. Where did this "intelligence" come from? Did we just "big bang" from nothing? C'mon
@bheadh ... how did ...? I don't know, therfore god did it.
You just applied the god-of-the-gaps argument several times.
Postulating a big-banger does not bring him into existence and does not intellectually and not emotionally satisfy as an explanation. Because you always can ask - who made the big-banger? Besides, it could have been 2, 3 or more gods that did it. And finally, as long as you can't observe the banger it does not serve as a scientific explanation.
@curiosityversusfaith Your "God of the gaps" excuse is nothing but intellectual laziness and a hypocritical statement. Why not offer the evidence of a "naturalistic soution"? This God of the gaps excuse is hard to take seriously and hypocritical by giving theists the burden of proof, then turning around and saying that God is not a appropriate answer for ANY phenomenon.This approach is close-minded and offers no logical alternative..OR "scientific explaination". No Shroud of Turin "explanation"?
There is no such thing as a 'god-of-the-gaps-excuse'. I have nothing to excuse. Show me, where I claimed the non-existence of god(s) or that the shroud of Turin was not made by some supernatural entity (e.g. fairies, devils, ghosts, gods ...). And I can live with no explanation rather than making things up, that are non-testable like metaphysical entities. Question: How can you distinguish between god or the devil making the shroud of Turin?
@curiosityversusfaith Answer: I don't think the devil would make an image of the crucified JESUS, neither would any other rational Christian. Yes, sorry, the "god of the gaps" IS an excuse, no matter whether YOU make the excuses or not. To go a little further, science will make up scenarios like "multiverses" (with NO PROOF) or any other excuse to deny the existence of God. Just because your limited, curious mind says there is no God, or "metaphisical entities" doesn't make it true.
@curiosityversusfaith..cont.. Im' sorry.."from nothing, by nothing, going nowhere for no reason. This is what your curious mind tells you? We know very little of the universe; we don't even know much about our own seas!? Yet mans limited intellect claims to have all the answers. He doesnt. As Fr. Le Maitre showed, faith can go hand in hand with curiousity. Most of the best scientific discoveries were made by men of faith if you do the research. Man needs to get off his high horse& intoHighChair
@curiosityversusfaith Let me explain in more scientific terms; Premise 1. "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" 2. The universe began to exist.therefore 3. The universe has a cause. The initial conditions of the universe are either caused by 1. Chance. 2. laws. 3. Intelligence. The "god of the gaps" has been replaced by "science" by using the un-scientific and equally confusing "future science of the gaps" ( the excuse that atheists use to explain that "science just hasn't figured it out YET.)
Incidentally, none of this makes any kind of case for Jesus. He didn't even answer the initial question. He completely avoided it and dazzled all of these gullible people with his shenanigans. I've seen it all before.
@TheSmackerlacker - You are incorrect. He answered the question through his whole diologue. If you were to try to present a God to those who have no God at all wouldn't you have to convice said individual that there is a God or reason for one? Ravi lays the frame work for exactly that.
@Eli121296 I have no god at all, and I can tell you right now, that is the wrong approach.
I also don't think that's what he was doing at all, because that wasn't the question. She asked him how to make a case for Jesus. He then proceeded to make a case for deism.
At any rate, if you want to convince an atheist that your god is real, you've got a hell of a task ahead of you. To an atheist, faith itself is absurd. That's a huge hurdle to get around, which he did not address.
As for assuming intelligence when we see intelligibility, that is ridiculous. The universe is full of examples of order rising out of disorder. Huge clouds of stellar dust coalescing into a round, solid mass with functioning systems inside is a prime example.
This argument has been made a thousand times before. When we see writing, we assume intellect because we have seen writers writing before. When we see water coalescing into a pool, we do not assume that there is a water coalescer.
@TheSmackerlacker - In answer to your last statement: Why not? Is it because we have never seen a divine "water coalescer" (which God must be if He created the world and the laws that govern it)?
You infer that because we have seen a writer writing then we may assume that words were written with inttelligence.
Is that then the complete argument for why there just can't be a God? Just because we've not physically seen Him before? It seems a poor argument to me.
@Eli121296 I have and will not make the statement "no god can exist". I will state that there is no reason to think that one does. The fact that something COULD exist is not proof that it does. Anything COULD exist. Most things do not.
Also, you missed the point. The point being that we assume things for various reasons, but that our assumption is based on what we think we know, not what actually is.
If I had never seen writing before, I would not assume a writer.
@TheSmackerlacker - It may be that my arguments and reasoning is defective. But I have a final question to pose to you. If there is no god, why then is there morality? If man evolved then he is an animal. Why does his life matter? What is the source of meaning and purpose? In our own actions? We make up our own purpose? Without God or some higher being what is truth? Whatever "speaks" to me? It is easy enough to say that my truth says yours is a lie. What is ultimately true?!
@Eli121296 I like how you said that you had one more question, then asked eight. So I'll answer, in no particular order. Truth is that which stands up to all scrutiny. Nothing more, nothing less.
Morality is the result of our efforts to eliminate suffering through cooperation. Purpose and meaning are emergent properties of our minds, and have no basis in actual fact.
Moreover, even if your god did exist, that would not validate any of these things, or give any purpose.
@TheSmackerlacker - By the wayside how can you say "there is no reason to think that [God] exists" and then say "but I will not make the statement 'no god can exist'"? If there is no evidence of somthing how can it exist? Get on one side or the other.
@Eli121296 You'll have to excuse me. I did not realize that I was dealing with an idiot.
I don't know that any god exists. I don't know that any god does not. I cannot know that any does exist because there is no evidence to suggest that one does, thus no reason to think so.
I cannot know that any god does not exist, because I do not and cannot know everything about everything in the universe and beyond, which is why it is impossible to prove a universal negative.
In order to convince an atheist that your god is real, you must do so using a method which is unique to your belief system.
Members of every religion have their "personal convictions" and "spiritual experiences". They even have their "miracles" and their "fulfilled prophecies". What none of them has is physical evidence of any kind.
If you could come up with that, I would pay attention.
@TheSmackerlacker - I'd like to point somthing out to you. Please take no offence but I believe you have an error in your reasoning. You ask for physical evidence of somthing spiritual. How is that possible? If you wish for manifestations of a Divine will then isn't that miracles, fuffilled prophecies and the like?
Also, one last thing if I may, Why must I prove that there is a God by way of any belief system? If God exists then is He not a truth? Cannot truth be logically explained?
@Eli121296 Also, the point I was making about prophecies and all that is that those really aren't proof of anything, until they are themselves proven. Every religion in the world has accounts of supposed miracles, not one of them ever proven to have taken place.
As for fulfilled prophecies, the same problem arises. Even if someone predicted future events with perfect accuracy, that does not support a belief in any god. I make predictions all the time. Many prove to be correct.
I don't think his explanations are for the unbelieving. Only God can change their hearts. Ravi's explanations helps anchor those who are already believers.
Holy Bible says, you can find signature of creator on every creation in the universe. I have seen that experiences that truth and believed in God. I even feel His presence. He loves all even though you do not believe Him.
@Paulmprasad yes He "...sends rain on the just and unjust. Mat5:45, but also "Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.'" John14:6. You MUST go to Jesus for forgiveness of sins, to be made new and back to the original state that God intended us to be in so we can have a relationship with Him now and for eternity.
@Paulmprasad If you are of a mind to want to see god in anything, then you will see him even though a simpler explanation is more likely. It's what religious people classify as evidence of God.
When the need for belief is strong enough, the human mind has a great propensity to finds patterns where none exist.
I also can also generate feelings of god, as I used to feel when I was a believer, but now I realise that it is all in my mind.
@Darwinsman Amen brother, what a coincidence that you´re even able to feel those feelings in your mind. That must be a statement for God itself giving you the chance to respond :D
Boy, that DNA is impressive! I have no idea how it came into existence, so I just say it MUST have been done by a supernatural being in the sky, eh, galaxy, eh, universe, eh, outside the universe, well, somewhere! It's the only explanation and those ancient desert goat herders knew all about it! Case closed!
@ronnystoehr God of the gaps hahahaha, what an argument!
"I don't understand it therefore its explanation MUST be Goddunnit" Great reasoning right there, everyone should totally come round to your way of thinking. When someone is murdered: The judge's verdict: "Goddunnit" When a new superbug like SARS is discovered and scientists try andfind out what caused it in order to better understand it, all they have to admit is "goddunnit." You know, I think you're on to something there!
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Now I'm not sure if you realized that I was using sarcasm?! Very often I think: this time I overdid the creatard impression....naah, it's still not silly enough! ;)
There is no evidence of any god, therefore what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence. The onus is on any believer, who wishes to convert an atheist, to give scientific evidence of their god. So far we atheists have not seen any evidence.
@roac7777 I believe in God, and the son of God Jesus. This belief is spiritual through faith, and because of obedience to Christs teachings we are able to see, and hear spiritually. In your guys case (Atheists) Your unbelief, keeps you blind (spiritually) hence you will never believe not even with evidence.
@noel720104 "I believe in God, and the son of God Jesus" Good for you, I am glad of your chains, but you must leave me out of it. One can be spiritual without any god or Jesus. As for being blind, you are asserting something without evidence, therefore I can dismiss it, I believe in science, reason and secular law and live life with a sense of wonder at nature & the universe, and enjoyment.
@roac7777 So you believe in spirituality? Since you have asserted one can be spiritual than give me your evidence of the spiritual. Did you just contradict yourself?
@noel720104 I use the word "spiritual" because there is no other metaphor. To me "spiritual" is a feeling of wonderment and contentment, excitement and tranquility. I feel this at a sunset, or watching the Northern Lights or listening to a favourite piece of music. What casues this to happen are the neurons buzzing around my brain as a result of the stimulus I am looking at or hearing.
@roac7777 Alright than it seems to me that you do sense God , or the presence of something more awesome than us. You see it as sight, or hearing which stimulates neurons, to me all that you feel and much more is felt in a silent dimmed room , on my knees reaching out to God.Its not just an experience as with seeing the northern lights but it is a way of life to me..
@noel720104 God has nothing to do with the way I feel. He does not exist. There is no scientific evidence that any god exists, be it Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Odin or Yahweh.
My disbelief in your god is the same as my disbelief in elves, dragons and unicorns. You cannot disprove elves, dragons, unicorns, Zeus, Thor, Odin and Apollo becasue they are supernatural and only appear to those who they want to appear to, just like your god.
Also the teachings of Christianity are immoral & depraved.
@peace000000000000 I am having trouble writing in this window, so will have to answer in several parts as I am restricted in the number of words I use.
@peace000000000000 Continued: My disbelief in your god is the same as my disbelief in elves, dragons & unicorns, you cannot disprove elves, dragons & unicorns nor Zeus or Thor.
@roac7777 Sorry to burst your bubble, but comparing God to some fictional characters mankind made up is far from logical. I find it funny how atheists always seem to use this incomparable argument.Just because you don't see God doesn't mean He doesn't exist, just like how we can't see gravity but we know it's there. And don't worry no one is going to force you to believe in God.Its not like believing in God will cause you to lose out on anything. But then again your too stubborn to convince.
There was a time, namely that of Antiochus IV, when a vigorous attempt was made to Hellenize the Jews. Antiochus decreed that they should eat pork, abandon circumcision, and take baths. Most of the Jews in Jerusalem submitted, but in country places resistance was more stubborn and under the leadership of the Maccabees the Jews at last established their right to their peculiar tenets and customs.
The first commandment, when it was new, was very difficult to obey because the Jews had believed that Baal and Ashtaroth and Dagon and Moloch and the rest were real gods but were wicked because they helped the enemies of the Jews.
The question whether there is a God is one which is decided on very different grounds by different communities and different individuals. The immense majority of mankind accept the prevailing opinion of their own community. In the earliest times of which we have definite history everybody believed in many gods. It was the Jews who first believed in only one.
@Nietzschean1000 1. You are incorrect about the Jews. The jews were not the first to create a monotheistic (single deity) religion. Off the top of my head right this second I can think of one major monotheistic religion that predates Judaism (by thousands of years I might add) and this is Hinduism. You may think that they worship many Gods eg (Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesh etc etc) but you are wrong....
@Nietzschean1000 It has always been stressed in Hinduism that (the one and only) God has many forms (Shiva and Vishnu being only 2 of these) but they are in essence one and the same being.
Also, how exactly is your assertion that Judaism was the first monotheistic religion at all relevant? Even if they were the first ones, how does that have any bearing on the truth of their religion?
We assume the note (in this case) is made because every case of a note we have experienced was made. Logical but one does not question nature becuase we have no cases of it occuring via an intelligence.
3) Jesus and the history of God.
If one studys the accuracy of the Bible, church documents, etc. There is much conflict around it. This point seems not as strong when investigation is placed into the history of God
@TheBenjaminchan 3) While there may be conflict and disagreement amongst laymen as to the accuracy of the Bible and church documents, scholars almost universally agree about many of the historical fact-claims made in the Bible. Namely, the empty tomb of Jesus. The question then becomes: What is the most likely explanation of this fact? The enemies of Christ claimed the disciples had stolen the body. Skeptics say that the disciples hallucinated his resurrection. And those who follow Christ (cont)
1) Why would the disciples be willing to not just die, but face constant persecution, over a span of nearly 50 years, for a lie that they perpetrated (in stealing away Jesus' body and claiming he was risen)?
2) There was no disposition for the disciples to believe that Jesus had been bodily resurrected. As Jews, the only resurrection they would have believed would be the resurrection at the end of the world (see John 11:24). (cont)
@PheonixRise173 There was also no disposition for a Jew to believe that God could have become incarnate, so if they were willing to believe that in contrast to the other Jews, why wouldn't they believe their own hallucination. You underestimate the power of the human mind to deal with cognitive dissonance. It's essentially the reason we still have Jehovah's Witnesses here after the Great Disappointment.
@dannytibi Indeed! They (the disciples) had no disposition, as Jews, to believe that God would become incarnate. Hence the reason there was many attempts on Jesus' life before the crucifixion. Jesus claimed to be God Himself many times, or equal to God (John 8:53 and John 10:30 are great examples).
But it doesn't follow that the disciples would have hallucinated Jesus bodily rising from the dead. The most a hallucination would have done would have shown would have been Jesus' spirit (cont)
@dannytibi ascended into the bosom of Abraham. Why would the disciples (all Jewish) have any disposition to believe that Jesus had bodily risen from the dead before the judgment (when to Jews believe the only resurrection to be; see John 11:24)? I cannot think of a more conceivable answer other than the disciples saw Jesus as being bodily risen.
1) No one faces 50 years of continual persecution for the sake of a lie
2) Any hallucination would not explain the empty tomb. (cont)
@dannytibi 3) A true and bodily risen Jesus would, as I said before, best explain both the disciples' belief that Jesus had risen as well as the empty tomb.
Just to make it crystal clear, if the disciples had had a hallucination, all the Sanhedrin would have had to do was roll the stone away from Jesus' tomb and point and laugh at the disciples for being fools.
@PheonixRise173 Again, you ignore the power of the human mind to effective deal with cognitive dissonance, these men had dedicated their entire lives to Jesus, and their very existential identity was predicated on him being who they believed him to be. You would think the Millerites would have been absolutely discouraged after the obvious failure of their prophet, but today psychologists know that the human mind is almost impervious to religious dis-confirmation when the belief is strong enough.
@dannytibi "their very existential identity was predicated on him being who they believed him to be."
Correct, which is why they abandoned him after he was captured. There was no room for a dying, much less rising Messiah during Yeshua's time. The Jews were all focused on Mashiach bin-David and had all but forgotten about Mashiach bin Yosef.
They was no disposition for them to hallucinate that Jesus was bodily raised (and if they did have that delusion, the Sanhedrin could have rolled (cont)
@dannytibi back the stone of Yeshua's tomb and pointed and laughed at the disciples for fools -- because EVEN IF the disciples had merely hallucinated Yeshua's bodily resurrection, his body would have still been in the tomb).
As for the jesus resurrection. There is a vast amount of resurrections mentioned in the new testement i.e the daughter of giles. Do believe this is true?
At the time of the cruxificiton. In Matthew it says that the graves opened and those in the graves left. This makes Jesus's resurrection seem rather.... inconsequntial. No offence intended
@TheBenjaminchan No offence taken. very good question, actually. Yes, I do believe the other resurrections mentioned in the new testament. Paul speaks the best on the matter of why Jesus' resurrection is the most important in his first letter to the church at Corinth. "Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."
Even with all the other resurrections, if Jesus was not risen, then we would still be in our sins. It is the resurrection, (cont)
@TheBenjaminchan not the crucifixion which delivers people from their sins. Granted, Jesus had to die in order for Him to be resurrected, but there was always the possibility that He might have simply been crucified and remained dead.
@PheonixRise173 You demonstrate that you still don't understand how the human mind deals with cognitive dissonance. Showing the "occupied tomb" would have had no more effect on Jesus' disciples than the simple fact that Jesus did not return on October 22, 1844 had on the followers of William Miller. Don't forget, Harold Camping still has followers despite having been proved wrong twice already.
@dannytibi And I think you demonstrate that you still don't understand how the disciples had no disposition to have this supposed hallucination. What about Saul's sudden conversion to Paul? How is that explained through hallucination when, if he did hallucinate, suffered the same hallucination that the disciples did years after they did. And Saul had even less disposition to hallucinate a risen Christ. He hated the followers of the Way, had them imprisoned or stoned to death.
@PheonixRise173 How do you figure the disciples had no disposition to hallucinate a resurrection? That is a mere assertion on your part, it is baseless and is contradicted by everything we know about human psychology, and particularly the psychology of religion. Religious believers are impervious to dis-confirmation, these men had sacrificed their whole identity to live according to the belief that that man was the messiah, they were committed, they had no where to go back to... (cont..)
@dannytibi Perhaps I did not post this earlier, but the disciples had no disposition for the resurrection because as Jews, they did not believe in any form of resurrection until the "last day" (the day of judgment). Ask any scholarly Jew on this matter and I can almost assure you that he will still hold to this view.
The Gospel of John even attests to this matter (see John 11:24).
@PheonixRise173 Someone's background, and cultural and religious heritage does not cast in iron the sort of beliefs that they will be pre-disposed to arrive at. That's as ridiculous as saying that since the Buddha was born and raised Hindu he would have had no disposition to come up with a doctrine denying the validity of the caste system, or the Hindu gods. Or that since Mohammed was raised in polytheistic Arabia he would have no disposition towards Monotheism.
@dannytibi As for the second part of your first post to me, perhaps you forget that I happen to be a religious believer as well. Am I impervious to dis-confirmation?
I agree with you about it being a psychological crisis for them, but why, for any reason would they have suddenly come about saying "Yeshua is risen!"? In Jewish tradition, a dead Messiah is a failed Messiah. Jews don't believe in a resurrection until the last day so why, for any reason, would the disciples do a thing like that?
@PheonixRise173 They wouldn't do it for any rational reason, these are not men exhibiting critical thinking skills and applying them to problem solving as you would expect a businessman to... these were men facing an identity crisis, the death of their leader meant that they had nothing to live for... they had turned their backs on their past lives to which they could not simply return and everything would be fine and dandy.
@dannytibi I don't believe you are at the same level of imperviousness that they were, no. But in a sense, yes, you and many believers of different religions I have met are remarkably resistant to rational persuasion. Not all are alike of course, I have still yet to gage just how impervious you are, but I don't think I will get a very accurate picture over a few YT comments. C'est la vie.
@PheonixRise173 Obviously I think you are delusional in the sense that you believe something I regard as false. That is not an ad hominem. I would not toss around that accusation unless my opponent has a made a direct personal insult. I think you are delusional in the sense that you believe a delusion, not in the sense that I think you are an idiot. I obviously don`t or I would not waste my time here.
@dannytibi I could equally say the same thing -- but then that will get us off to no where. Sigmund Freud said that religion is naught but wish fulfillment brought upon by childish feelings of helplessness and want of immortality.
Half a century later, C. S. Lewis fired back with the counter claim that that holds no more intellectual weight than him saying that irreligion is naught but wish fulfillment brought upon by childish feelings of guilt and a want of freedom from accoutability.
@PheonixRise173 (cont. prev.)..they had no place to go, if Jesus died, then they lost everything they had sacrificed their entire lives for, they were not about to say, "oh well, he's dead... guess we were wrong then...", no that doesn't just happen that way. Once you are committed to following a charismatic figure to the same level they were you don't just suddenly and cavalierly dismiss what you sacrificed so much for. The death of their leader was a real psychological crisis for them.
@PheonixRise173 Now, about Saul, he is not the first or only person in history to be reported as having had a sudden and unexpected conversion, there actually is something known as sudden conversion syndrome. Possibly he was psychologically overcome with guilt for persecuting and murdering so many Christians that, at the onset of some neurological event, perhaps a near-death experience, his guilt manifested itself in the form of a vision. The brain is quite powerful like that.
@dannytibi The Saul problem runs into the same problem with the disciples, but on a much larger scale. Whereas the disciples knew scripture and believed on it, they were rustic country-bumpkins compared to Saul who was a Pharisee, a member of a sect of Judaism dedicated to studying and interpreting the written law into the Jewish "oral law"
Of all people, Saul would have known as a religious and educated Jew that there would be no resurrection until the last day. (cont)
@PheonixRise173 Psychology does not respect intellect, education or culture, either you have a sound mind or you don't. Saul for all of his knowledge was very probably racked with guilt, and any sufficiently traumatic experience, like a stroke induced NDE would have easily lead to such a hallucination.
@dannytibi These are of course, speculations based on second hand accounts acquired from a letter written by someone who may or may have not been Paul, for all I know, who wrote about an event that may or may not have happened to him or someone else he is claiming to be writing as, but even if it did, psychology has a wealth of explanation based on real mental phenomena that can easily explain what happened without appealing to the supernatural.
@dannytibi Continuing over from my other comment, this is beginning to sound like a "psychology of the gaps" to me.
I also find it funny that since you can't seem to prove your point, you say that the given account of what happened is hogwash anyway. Historical evidence has proven many of the doctrines and beliefs of the early Christian church to within five years of the resurrection of Christ.
With the "psychology of the gaps" and "the accounts being hogwash" it sounds like you're copping out
@PheonixRise173 No, you simply missed the point that I was making implicitly, that given the shaky grounds you have for establishing these events as facts, as well as the wealth of possible explanations provided through the science of psychology, you have no warrant for demanding the necessity of invoking the supernatural in order to explain these questionable events.
@dannytibi Historical evidence, cannot establish any event beyond a reasonable doubt the way forensic science can. If I have DNA, or other forms of uncontroversial physical evidence that testifies John Doe was present at such and such place at such and such place, that would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, historical evidence can only establish events to varying degrees of probability, but never beyond a reasonable doubt.
@dannytibi So you want to take the verificationist approach. I find it funny that one would question these events, yet one would never question whether or not the events Muhammad or Siddhartha Gautama ever took place.
Quite honestly, that's like me believing that the Apology of Socrates never took place.
@dannytibi Never once did I demand the necessity of it. I simply stated that the best explanation for these events are what the claims in the Bible are, given the anthropological, historical and cultural evidence.
Again, it seems that when you've been backed into a corner, you pull the "well, these events really can't be facts." For what reason? Because they're in the Bible? If these events did not happen (supernatural or hallucinogenic) there wouldn't be Christians today.
@PheonixRise173 Did I say they can`t be facts? I specifically said, all these events can be accounted for through the study of psychology. I just happen to not be convinced that they must have happened. That ties in to your argument about the best explanation. These events do not demand an explanation, unless they have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. But insofar as I am granting that they did happen for argument sake, I have provided a totally plausible naturalistic account.
@dannytibi To me, it seems you're frightened of believing in the supernatural because of what it implies and like many of the irreligious before yourself, you use psychology as a way of attempting to explain away certain facts.
Again, you have not. The disciples and Saul had no incentive to believe in a resurrected Jesus if it was a delusion. The Pharisees would have merely rolled back the stone from the tomb and pointed to the truth -- but they didn't. They said the disciples stole the body.
@PheonixRise173 You are reverting to a position that I have already shown is untenable, namely the idea that Saul and the Disciples were beyond question, sane, impartial, uninvolved, rational actors. The disciples could not afford to give up on what they had started, there were intense emotions playing decisive roles in each case. The occupied tomb would not have dissuaded the hopelessly convinced, just as Arthur Millers failure did not dissuade his followers. Why must we go through this again?
@dannytibi Alright, I'll spell it out fully to make it crystal clear. Even if the disciples AND Paul had had a delusion of a risen Jesus, all the Pharisees would have had to do was to roll away the stone and say: "These guys are delusional! Jesus is still in the tomb! Don't believe what they say about him being resurrected! Here's the proof he's not!"
But no, they didn't do that or say that. They said "They stole the body away they're liars!" Thus taking away their most powerful argument (cont)
@PheonixRise173 And how exactly would they go about parading the body all over Europe and Asia Minor for everyone to see how the disciples where delusional? In an age of pre-scientific mysticism and superstitious people, with no form of mass communication, you really think reports of miracles could not travel faster than any attempt to present contrary evidence?
@dannytibi Heck, even now with all the communication technology we have, we still got people believing in UFOs, Elvis being alive, Sathya Sai Baba, and all manner of ludicrous beliefs.
@dannytibi That's the minority of the population; but if you want to base it off how many people believe this and that, belief in Adonai is mainstream and also the largest belief held in the world -- a fulfilled prophecy actually, that Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles (non Jews) and bring them into the knowledge of Adonai.
@PheonixRise173 How did I even imply that I was basing things off numbers. The entire theme that I have been expounding here is the capacity of the human mind to believe fantastic claims no matter how improbable, far fetched, or even how much dis-confirmation one is exposed to. That is why I brought up these modern wackos.
@dannytibi And I'm pointing out to you that not only are you calling the disciples lunatics but also myself and every other sensible Christian as well. Yes, I do admit that there are lunatics who call themselves Christians, but they do so in name only.
"Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men." (Isaiah 29:13)
@PheonixRise173 Well, I have stated before that I do think both you and the disciples believe in a delusion, I don't state that as an offence, or affront towards. I have been very careful not to deliberately and directly insult you. I believe the same about Muslims, as do you. Correct me if I am wrong but you believe that Mohammed was a cult leader and that his disciples were mislead by him, don't you? So what is the problem if I believe the same about your religion.
@dannytibi They wouldn't need to parade the body. Just send letters about it. Don't mistake the first century culture in Asia Minor and Roman controlled Europe for being ignorant and uneducated. And people did not take kindly to being played with. Today, someone spreading false reports is taken to court and sued. In that age, a person was lucky if he wasn't killed outright for it.
@PheonixRise173 And what would letters prove? One can write that one has the body of Jesus whether one has it or not. And how would they prove that the disciples were playing with them, living thousands of miles away from were the body is supposed to be?
@dannytibi Letters were the ancient world's form of worldwide communication (ours being satellite television). The thing about it is, there is no such letter written by any one that Yeshua's body still remained in the tomb. Instead of saying that the disciple's claims were false (or that they were crazy), the Sanhedrin said that the disciples stole the body. Why? Because there was no body to be found.
If there is one historical claim that can be made about this, it is that the tomb was empty.
@PheonixRise173 One of many plausible naturalistic explanations would be Bart Ehrman hypothesis about a couple of Jesus's anonymous disciples having actually stolen the body, and encountered Roman soldiers on the way back who kill them unceremoniously, who now have 3 bodies and not knowing were the 3rd one came from dumped all 3 into a river. I don't think this is what actually happened, it's just a hypothesis, but it's a plausible one.
@dannytibi (cont) for swaying the peoples of Asia Minor and Europe that Jesus was who He claimed to be and that he rose from the dead.
Also, unlike the followers of Arthur Miller, they didn't have anyone after them that would stone them to death if they were caught. On multiple occasions, the disciples of Jesus were captured and stoned by religious authorities and left for dead.
@PheonixRise173 I would advise you to read up on the Great Dissapointment before stating that the Millerites faced no persecution. They were repeatedly attacked, their churches bombed, they were tarred and feathered and suffered all manner of violence and insults all over the US and Canada. That only strengthened their conviction and dedication to one another and their shared beliefs.
@dannytibi Funny thing about it is that you're actually equating me to the Millerites and the Great Disappointment when the 'prophecies' given to them were false. The reason why the Great Disappointment is named thus is because of a failed prophecy. I'm sorry, I'm not going to follow a cause that is littered with failed prophecies. None of the prophecies given by Adonai in Scripture have ever failed, and this is one of the reasons why I believe in the words of Adonai. He has never been false.
@PheonixRise173 I bring up the Millerites to illustrate the remarkable resilience of the human mind to obvious dis-confirmation. Which would be case if the resurrection never happened. I am merely using them to show that it is not impossible for people to persist in their belief system even after it has been obviously disproved. Your argument is that it would be impossible for the disciples to continue believing in Jesus if the resurrection had not happened, the Millerites are a counter example.
@dannytibi My argument wasn't that the disciples would have stopped believing. My argument was that Christianity would not have spread as it did if it had been revealed that Jesus was still in the tomb. Josephus would have made mention about it in his Antiquities.
And strangely enough, your usage of the Millerites confirms this very thing. How wide-spread is this belief now? It's almost non-existent whereas in the first few centuries after Christ, 1 in 27 Romans were Christians.
@PheonixRise173 You're kidding right? The Millerites today are the 7th Day Adventists, as well as other religious groups that are Adventists in orientation. Over 16,000,000 adherents worldwide. More than 1,000,000 new members since 2009.
@dannytibi He hated the followers of the Way. Just take a look at many of the Islamic persecutors of Christianity in places like Sudan and Somalia. You do not see Muslims converting out of Islam and becoming Christians because of guilt; and any such Muslims that do convert out of Islam and become Christian only experience guilt after their conversion.
And a hallucination that effected not only the disciples but Saul and 500 hundred other men as well?
@dannytibi Just look at some of the videos posted on youtube about radical Muslim opinions on Christians in places like Sudan and Somalia. Not only that, I've been deployed to Afghanistan, and while there, there where three Christians were abducted and killed by Islamic extremists simply for being Christian. They were civilian contractors, not soldiers at that.
@PheonixRise173 Ok, and how is that supposed to prove that these people are neurologically incapable of harbouring guilt in their subconscious? I never denied that these people are capable of horrendous acts, that has nothing to with whether or not in principle they are capable of harbouring guilt.
The problem with positing a psychological claim is that you cannot do so about a person unless you sit them down and have a talk with them.
This is, to be frank, quite ludicrous. Would you want to do the same with Socrates? He only had one of his followers write about him whereas Yeshua had many more.
@dannytibi (cont) Furthermore, why would he be overcome with guilt at persecuting and murdering so many that, in his eyes at the time, were followers of a false messiah and a man who spoke blasphemy on the temple steps? When Saul was on the road to Damascus, he wasn't going there to apologize to the followers of the Way that were there; he was going there to have them either imprisoned or stoned to death.
Simply: Saul had no reason for having Sudden Conversion Syndrome.
1) 1) Why would the disciples be willing to not just die.. etc
This is the assumption that biblical statements about the disciples are true. Not saying it isn't but perhaps some historical evidence?
2) Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." That John 11:24. A little confused what you're contending a point 2.
@TheBenjaminchan 1) Don't forget that the letters of Paul and the rest of the apostles are considered by most scholars to be historical documents. These were not originally tied in with the gospels written about Jesus but were letters sent to different churches around Asia Minor and Europe.
2) I was contending that even in the gospels, the Jews portray the same beliefs they have today -- that there will be no resurrection until the last day. A Jew would have been thought crazy if he said else.
@TheBenjaminchan 3) Though this would be unexplainable through purely material causes, it would be the best cause in order to explain both the missing body from the tomb as well as the extraordinary testimony the disciples of Jesus gave. That Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.
2) When you look at intelligibility, you always assume an intelligence behind it.
Again by using his large vocabulary this point seems valid but it is the infamous watch makers analogy.
It still doesn't prove Gods existence. Unless we are the intelligiblity... Therefore one may conclude that the intelligence behind it is God. But this is false. Humans, tress, animals, planets, UNIVERSE... are all naturally occuring. Natural occuring requires no intelligence behind it to continue.
@TheBenjaminchan for if there is a creator of the universe, an uncaused cause, then this uncaused cause, this creator, would be the cause of naturally occuring things. Therefore, I propose this:
1) The argument to design would be evidence for the existence God if we are the intelligiblity mentioned in the argument.
2) Humans are naturally occuring things.
3) Naturally occuring things were first caused by God
4) Therefore, humans are the products of God's intelligence.
I was directing that Ravi used something that is unatural. A note. He then goes to extrapolate that to everything. There is nature and there is a made artifact. One cannot expand the made to the natural. They are two different occuring things.
However to say that the motion that created the natural occuring was God. The preposition you made can only be proved if god is proven.
@TheBenjaminchan The preposition I gave wasn't so much a 'proof' of God, rather to say that God is the best explanation for the naturally occuring. Considering all the physical laws of the universe, we're left with three options. Necessity, chance, or design.
1) The laws could only be due to necessity if the universe created itself -- and the universe could have only created itself if the universe and it's necessary laws existed prior to itself.
@TheBenjaminchan 2) Considering the appearent fine-tuning of the laws, as many have often put it (including Ravi himself) "I cannot believe that the dictionary came about because of an explosion in the printing-press." The same holds true with these laws of the universe. These laws contain information and there are three things required for information: 1) an intelligence to place the information into a medium, 2) a medium to contain the information and, 3) an intelligence to extract it.
@TheBenjaminchan So I therefore conclude that with 3) The universe was designed, and the only thing that fits the description of that designer is God. (one could simply refer to this 'designer' as a 'creator' but that's just a redundance of words since Elohim, 'God' in hebrew, means 'creator').
@TheBenjaminchan Like I said in answering one of your earlier comments, information requires three things: 1) an intelligence to place information into a medium, 2) a medium to contain the information, and 3) another intelligence to extract the information from the medium. We are number 3 as we are constantly discovering information in the universe. The question then becomes who or what put it there? The only answer I find to give this question justice is the creator and designer, God.
His utlises arguements that have been recited by many religious people. Although he does state these three points in a much more formal language, rather than that of the average person.
1) "No physical quantity explains itself"
Stating that something prior is the reason to that reality existence in itself. If you were to state "what about God?" Would not God require a prior reason for existence? Probable that then he would make an exception to his own arguement. Which is somewhat illogical
@TheBenjaminchan Just a quick response to some of the points you've made here, which are all very reasonable.
1) What you seem to be positing is the same question that Carl Sagan once asked: "If God created the universe, who created God?" Ravi defines God as being infinite (and therefore eternal), and therefore, always existing. The uncaused cause of all things. Now one can say that the universe itself could be the uncaused cause but as Alexander Vilenkin showed on Stephan Hawking's (cont)
@PheonixRise173 First of all before I retort, congratulations on forulating a intelligence response with no profanity used. To many responses i receive are poorly thought out.
The Kalam cosmological arguement
There are a few of problems with this argument I believe. When we look a the first premise, it simply seems untrue in light of our understanding of quantum mechanics. Another example is the decay of carbon, which demonstrates things to exist without a cause.
@TheBenjaminchan I was a bit confused at first what you were refering to the decay of carbon about, but I looked it up and understood.
The problem with using the decay of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 is that even though the decay appears to be random and 'causeless' ... at least you have the Carbon-14 to begin with. Carbon-12 does not pop into being out of literal nothingness; there's something prior to it.
In the same way, I find it illogical to say the universe popped into being from nothingness.
The problem found in this is that it contains its own refutation when accompanied with the Kalam cosmological arguement. First everything has a cause and then immediatly the exception created to this is god. Seems illogical.
Quick question. Is God in our time realm or in any place where time exists?
@TheBenjaminchan In response to your quick question, no. God exists beyond time. He is without time, hence why He is eternal.
That being said, if God exists beyond time and without it, then He does need to have a cause. Being that God is eternal, He has always existed. This was said about the universe for millenia, that the universe was eternal. Modern cosmology has shown otherwise.
@PheonixRise173 Boy, I'm jumping into this without reading the whole exchange, but my view is faith. God said it, that settles it. If i had to understand & know the intricacies of creation & life, I'd be , well, not God, but a lot closer! My view is that if there is a God (which I believe), then He can reveal Himself or not (He does). He loves us and preserve His Word. Jesus said He was The Way, The Truth, The Life. Either He was lying, or telling the truth.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 No, but again it's faith, based oh historical evidence. Just a quick example. The Gospel of Luke mentions historical places, names (e.g. King Herod) & times, which (I have been told) are all verifiable. So if the writer is correct with these things, are we then to suppose that he lied concerning a person named Jesus, and His assertion that He was the Son of God, died on the cross, and rose again? They still can't prove Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and that was only 1963
@greenwich1754 All the gospels were written years after any of the witnesses were dead. They don't even know who actually wrote the gospels. On the matter of absolute truth, I don't think there is any due to the theory of relativity, on this I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
@greenwich1754 Oh come on. Just because the bible mentions real places doesn't automatically make it reasonable to assume everything in it is true. Just because Spiderman is set in New York, a real place, doesn't mean Spiderman and all the evil supervillians exist! I have absolutely no idea how you managed to draw a conclusion like that, I really don't...
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 I managed to draw a conclusion based on verifiable historical names, places & time(s). People do it all the time - the old "it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well probably a duck (but not proven). I find nearly all people who don't believe in Christ is because of the eternal consequences of rejecting Him if He was who He says He was. Why would men write a book that has moral/ethical laws that no one can live up to? We are all sinners, and Jesus came to save us.
@greenwich1754 Please elaborate on how you came to these conclusions. Erm no, the are actually specific criteria as to what defines a 'duck'. Yes, people often assume things... and when they do this, they are also prone to getting it wrong. Are you implying that when people assume things, it is likely they are correct? Because that is demonstrably false...
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 So you're saying that all assumptions are false? Sure, an assumption can be wrong, but it can also be right. There is also the word "faith". If everything needed tangible "hold in your hand, see with your eyes" first person confirmation, then there would be no need for the word "faith" in the dictionary. If I could prove/explain/understand EVERYTHING, then I guess I'd be, well, god. We exercise faith in mundane things, as we trust a chair will support us when we sit.
@greenwich1754 I seriously don't understand why creationists always like to twist the words of HONEST people. I was addressing your duck analogy by saying people that often make uneducated assumptions as to what species a bird comes under are prone to getting it wrong. I didn't say "all assumptions are false." Do you people get tired lying and spreading misinformation? Doesn't it weigh on your conscience? Or do you do it subconsciously? This is what irritates me the most about you people....
@greenwich1754 "We exercise faith in mundane things, as we trust a chair will support us when we sit." That is an extremely misleading example. We do not use 'faith' in the way you put it. We use evidence and reasoned logic. Chairs are built to sit on and support our weight. Pretty much every one of us has sat in chairs countless times before and thus we have seen first hand multiple times that they are capable of holding us. This is the evidence. Thus we can reason that...
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Ok, the chair analogy is certainly not on the par of faith in God. As to the duck analogy, I was using that as a general phrase meaning if one is given a certain set of information, one draws a conclusion, based on experience/deductive reasoning, I wasn't referring to a literal duck per se. I'll accept the uneducated, ignorant, stupid, whatever else you want to brandish me, but I certainly don't intentionally "lie". For someone called "FrankieSayRelaxxx" you seem uptight.
@greenwich1754 Then how did you get from people who make assumptions are prone to getting it wrong" to "all assumptions are false"? There is no way you could take one of those statements as meaning the same as the other. You just can't. I seem "uptight" because creationists do this all the time. Whether they do it on purpose I'm not sure. But they do do it.
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Don't take everything so literally - I used "people using assumptions are prone to getting it wrong"/"all assumptions are false" as extreme hyperbole to show that you (by your response) admit that some assumptions are correct. I know I'll never convince you that I believe Jesus is the only hope for salvation from our sins and eternal life, so after all this, I'm curious on your take on religion(s), or are you an atheist? To me, it takes more "faith" to be an atheist.
Why does god have to be personnel? Creatards think everything is caused by god, not everyone thinks like that, just brainwashed people. Some people see the forces of nature.
gregrutz 3 days ago
Ravi,
I believe in intelligence because there are people who act intelligently, I believe in music because there are people who make music, I believe in ethics because there are people who cooperate to minimize suffering, but sorry, I don't believe in god(s) just because the flock is chanting it.
It just takes a single demonstrable example of those thousand gods that minkind has fantasized up - so, what is the address of this 'person' called god, that supposedly is three in one?
curiosityversusfaith 3 days ago
@curiosityversusfaith If you are truly "curious" tell me, how did the image appear on the shroud of Turin? Modern science can't answer. Beside that, everything in the universe is contingent until you get to the "big-bang" (a theory that was first thought of by a Catholic priest & physicist, Fr. Le Maitre) Everything is intelligible and made from intelligible information, so much so as to allow life on our planet. Where did this "intelligence" come from? Did we just "big bang" from nothing? C'mon
bheadh 3 days ago
@bheadh ... how did ...? I don't know, therfore god did it.
You just applied the god-of-the-gaps argument several times.
Postulating a big-banger does not bring him into existence and does not intellectually and not emotionally satisfy as an explanation. Because you always can ask - who made the big-banger? Besides, it could have been 2, 3 or more gods that did it. And finally, as long as you can't observe the banger it does not serve as a scientific explanation.
curiosityversusfaith 2 days ago
@curiosityversusfaith Your "God of the gaps" excuse is nothing but intellectual laziness and a hypocritical statement. Why not offer the evidence of a "naturalistic soution"? This God of the gaps excuse is hard to take seriously and hypocritical by giving theists the burden of proof, then turning around and saying that God is not a appropriate answer for ANY phenomenon.This approach is close-minded and offers no logical alternative..OR "scientific explaination". No Shroud of Turin "explanation"?
bheadh 2 days ago
@bheadh
There is no such thing as a 'god-of-the-gaps-excuse'. I have nothing to excuse. Show me, where I claimed the non-existence of god(s) or that the shroud of Turin was not made by some supernatural entity (e.g. fairies, devils, ghosts, gods ...). And I can live with no explanation rather than making things up, that are non-testable like metaphysical entities. Question: How can you distinguish between god or the devil making the shroud of Turin?
curiosityversusfaith 15 hours ago
@curiosityversusfaith Answer: I don't think the devil would make an image of the crucified JESUS, neither would any other rational Christian. Yes, sorry, the "god of the gaps" IS an excuse, no matter whether YOU make the excuses or not. To go a little further, science will make up scenarios like "multiverses" (with NO PROOF) or any other excuse to deny the existence of God. Just because your limited, curious mind says there is no God, or "metaphisical entities" doesn't make it true.
bheadh 11 hours ago
@curiosityversusfaith..cont.. Im' sorry.."from nothing, by nothing, going nowhere for no reason. This is what your curious mind tells you? We know very little of the universe; we don't even know much about our own seas!? Yet mans limited intellect claims to have all the answers. He doesnt. As Fr. Le Maitre showed, faith can go hand in hand with curiousity. Most of the best scientific discoveries were made by men of faith if you do the research. Man needs to get off his high horse& intoHighChair
bheadh 3 days ago
@bheadh
What 'my curious mind tells me' is not that what you think it does. Mind-telling does not bring things into or out of existence.
What man needs, is/was able to or should do (in your opinion) also does not serve as an argument for the existence of any kind of gods.
curiosityversusfaith 2 days ago
@curiosityversusfaith Let me explain in more scientific terms; Premise 1. "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" 2. The universe began to exist.therefore 3. The universe has a cause. The initial conditions of the universe are either caused by 1. Chance. 2. laws. 3. Intelligence. The "god of the gaps" has been replaced by "science" by using the un-scientific and equally confusing "future science of the gaps" ( the excuse that atheists use to explain that "science just hasn't figured it out YET.)
bheadh 2 days ago
Incidentally, none of this makes any kind of case for Jesus. He didn't even answer the initial question. He completely avoided it and dazzled all of these gullible people with his shenanigans. I've seen it all before.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker - You are incorrect. He answered the question through his whole diologue. If you were to try to present a God to those who have no God at all wouldn't you have to convice said individual that there is a God or reason for one? Ravi lays the frame work for exactly that.
Eli121296 4 days ago
@Eli121296 I have no god at all, and I can tell you right now, that is the wrong approach.
I also don't think that's what he was doing at all, because that wasn't the question. She asked him how to make a case for Jesus. He then proceeded to make a case for deism.
At any rate, if you want to convince an atheist that your god is real, you've got a hell of a task ahead of you. To an atheist, faith itself is absurd. That's a huge hurdle to get around, which he did not address.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
As for assuming intelligence when we see intelligibility, that is ridiculous. The universe is full of examples of order rising out of disorder. Huge clouds of stellar dust coalescing into a round, solid mass with functioning systems inside is a prime example.
This argument has been made a thousand times before. When we see writing, we assume intellect because we have seen writers writing before. When we see water coalescing into a pool, we do not assume that there is a water coalescer.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker - In answer to your last statement: Why not? Is it because we have never seen a divine "water coalescer" (which God must be if He created the world and the laws that govern it)?
You infer that because we have seen a writer writing then we may assume that words were written with inttelligence.
Is that then the complete argument for why there just can't be a God? Just because we've not physically seen Him before? It seems a poor argument to me.
Eli121296 4 days ago
@Eli121296 I have and will not make the statement "no god can exist". I will state that there is no reason to think that one does. The fact that something COULD exist is not proof that it does. Anything COULD exist. Most things do not.
Also, you missed the point. The point being that we assume things for various reasons, but that our assumption is based on what we think we know, not what actually is.
If I had never seen writing before, I would not assume a writer.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker - It may be that my arguments and reasoning is defective. But I have a final question to pose to you. If there is no god, why then is there morality? If man evolved then he is an animal. Why does his life matter? What is the source of meaning and purpose? In our own actions? We make up our own purpose? Without God or some higher being what is truth? Whatever "speaks" to me? It is easy enough to say that my truth says yours is a lie. What is ultimately true?!
Eli121296 4 days ago
@Eli121296 I like how you said that you had one more question, then asked eight. So I'll answer, in no particular order. Truth is that which stands up to all scrutiny. Nothing more, nothing less.
Morality is the result of our efforts to eliminate suffering through cooperation. Purpose and meaning are emergent properties of our minds, and have no basis in actual fact.
Moreover, even if your god did exist, that would not validate any of these things, or give any purpose.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker - By the wayside how can you say "there is no reason to think that [God] exists" and then say "but I will not make the statement 'no god can exist'"? If there is no evidence of somthing how can it exist? Get on one side or the other.
Eli121296 4 days ago
@Eli121296 You'll have to excuse me. I did not realize that I was dealing with an idiot.
I don't know that any god exists. I don't know that any god does not. I cannot know that any does exist because there is no evidence to suggest that one does, thus no reason to think so.
I cannot know that any god does not exist, because I do not and cannot know everything about everything in the universe and beyond, which is why it is impossible to prove a universal negative.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
In order to convince an atheist that your god is real, you must do so using a method which is unique to your belief system.
Members of every religion have their "personal convictions" and "spiritual experiences". They even have their "miracles" and their "fulfilled prophecies". What none of them has is physical evidence of any kind.
If you could come up with that, I would pay attention.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@TheSmackerlacker - I'd like to point somthing out to you. Please take no offence but I believe you have an error in your reasoning. You ask for physical evidence of somthing spiritual. How is that possible? If you wish for manifestations of a Divine will then isn't that miracles, fuffilled prophecies and the like?
Also, one last thing if I may, Why must I prove that there is a God by way of any belief system? If God exists then is He not a truth? Cannot truth be logically explained?
Eli121296 4 days ago
@Eli121296 You don't have to prove that there is a god. Indeed, you cannot. Nor can you prove that there is not a god.
The problem here is that there is no evidence either way. No deity has ever manifested itself in our world in any measurable, demonstrable way.
If you're going to believe something without the slightest shred of proof, and treat that as valid, then any belief is valid.
Simply replace the word "god" with any other word, and you'll see the flaw in your thinking.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
@Eli121296 Also, the point I was making about prophecies and all that is that those really aren't proof of anything, until they are themselves proven. Every religion in the world has accounts of supposed miracles, not one of them ever proven to have taken place.
As for fulfilled prophecies, the same problem arises. Even if someone predicted future events with perfect accuracy, that does not support a belief in any god. I make predictions all the time. Many prove to be correct.
TheSmackerlacker 4 days ago
I don't think his explanations are for the unbelieving. Only God can change their hearts. Ravi's explanations helps anchor those who are already believers.
miskittt 5 days ago
why do religious hustlers never have a new argument?
I don't know why where, so that means god did it! lol
/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk
l337pwnage 6 days ago
Personal moral intelligent benevolent creator....Praise Jesus!
doobersmanster 1 week ago
Adorable young woman!
Kaddywompous 1 week ago
@Kaddywompous She is so pretty:)
doobersmanster 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On youtube (Famous atheists last words before dying)
sprinkle888 1 week ago
Thank you Ravi you are such a help to those like me who have the 'gift' of faith without seeing but cannot be concrete about sharing it
angeangel1 1 week ago
Holy Bible says, you can find signature of creator on every creation in the universe. I have seen that experiences that truth and believed in God. I even feel His presence. He loves all even though you do not believe Him.
Paulmprasad 1 week ago
@Paulmprasad yes He "...sends rain on the just and unjust. Mat5:45, but also "Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.'" John14:6. You MUST go to Jesus for forgiveness of sins, to be made new and back to the original state that God intended us to be in so we can have a relationship with Him now and for eternity.
SenseiGrove 1 week ago
@Paulmprasad Then you are deluded.
roac7777 1 week ago
@Paulmprasad If you are of a mind to want to see god in anything, then you will see him even though a simpler explanation is more likely. It's what religious people classify as evidence of God.
When the need for belief is strong enough, the human mind has a great propensity to finds patterns where none exist.
I also can also generate feelings of god, as I used to feel when I was a believer, but now I realise that it is all in my mind.
Darwinsman 1 week ago
@Darwinsman Amen brother, what a coincidence that you´re even able to feel those feelings in your mind. That must be a statement for God itself giving you the chance to respond :D
SuperDilemma 1 week ago
@SuperDilemma It has nothing to do with any god. I can switch the feelings off just as easily.
I realise that they are simply a side effect of the normal function of how the brain has evolved and developed to enable us to survive.
Darwinsman 6 days ago
Boy, that DNA is impressive! I have no idea how it came into existence, so I just say it MUST have been done by a supernatural being in the sky, eh, galaxy, eh, universe, eh, outside the universe, well, somewhere! It's the only explanation and those ancient desert goat herders knew all about it! Case closed!
ronnystoehr 2 weeks ago
@ronnystoehr God of the gaps hahahaha, what an argument!
"I don't understand it therefore its explanation MUST be Goddunnit" Great reasoning right there, everyone should totally come round to your way of thinking. When someone is murdered: The judge's verdict: "Goddunnit" When a new superbug like SARS is discovered and scientists try andfind out what caused it in order to better understand it, all they have to admit is "goddunnit." You know, I think you're on to something there!
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Now I'm not sure if you realized that I was using sarcasm?! Very often I think: this time I overdid the creatard impression....naah, it's still not silly enough! ;)
ronnystoehr 1 week ago
@ronnystoehr Damn... lol
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 week ago
This video is bullshit.
roac7777 2 weeks ago
There is no evidence of any god, therefore what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence. The onus is on any believer, who wishes to convert an atheist, to give scientific evidence of their god. So far we atheists have not seen any evidence.
roac7777 2 weeks ago
@roac7777 I believe in God, and the son of God Jesus. This belief is spiritual through faith, and because of obedience to Christs teachings we are able to see, and hear spiritually. In your guys case (Atheists) Your unbelief, keeps you blind (spiritually) hence you will never believe not even with evidence.
noel720104 2 weeks ago
@noel720104 "I believe in God, and the son of God Jesus" Good for you, I am glad of your chains, but you must leave me out of it. One can be spiritual without any god or Jesus. As for being blind, you are asserting something without evidence, therefore I can dismiss it, I believe in science, reason and secular law and live life with a sense of wonder at nature & the universe, and enjoyment.
roac7777 2 weeks ago
@roac7777 So you believe in spirituality? Since you have asserted one can be spiritual than give me your evidence of the spiritual. Did you just contradict yourself?
noel720104 2 weeks ago
@noel720104 I use the word "spiritual" because there is no other metaphor. To me "spiritual" is a feeling of wonderment and contentment, excitement and tranquility. I feel this at a sunset, or watching the Northern Lights or listening to a favourite piece of music. What casues this to happen are the neurons buzzing around my brain as a result of the stimulus I am looking at or hearing.
roac7777 2 weeks ago
@roac7777 Alright than it seems to me that you do sense God , or the presence of something more awesome than us. You see it as sight, or hearing which stimulates neurons, to me all that you feel and much more is felt in a silent dimmed room , on my knees reaching out to God.Its not just an experience as with seeing the northern lights but it is a way of life to me..
noel720104 2 weeks ago
@noel720104 God has nothing to do with the way I feel. He does not exist. There is no scientific evidence that any god exists, be it Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Odin or Yahweh.
My disbelief in your god is the same as my disbelief in elves, dragons and unicorns. You cannot disprove elves, dragons, unicorns, Zeus, Thor, Odin and Apollo becasue they are supernatural and only appear to those who they want to appear to, just like your god.
Also the teachings of Christianity are immoral & depraved.
roac7777 1 week ago
@roac7777 there is no evidence that God doesnt exist
peace000000000000 2 weeks ago
@peace000000000000 You are right, however the onus is not on me to disprove your god, it is on the believers who try to sell god to me.
roac7777 2 weeks ago
@peace000000000000 I am having trouble writing in this window, so will have to answer in several parts as I am restricted in the number of words I use.
roac7777 2 weeks ago
@peace000000000000 Continued: My disbelief in your god is the same as my disbelief in elves, dragons & unicorns, you cannot disprove elves, dragons & unicorns nor Zeus or Thor.
roac7777 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
peace000000000000 1 week ago
@peace000000000000 What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
roac7777 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roac7777 Sorry to burst your bubble, but comparing God to some fictional characters mankind made up is far from logical. I find it funny how atheists always seem to use this incomparable argument.Just because you don't see God doesn't mean He doesn't exist, just like how we can't see gravity but we know it's there. And don't worry no one is going to force you to believe in God.Its not like believing in God will cause you to lose out on anything. But then again your too stubborn to convince.
peace000000000000 1 week ago
There was a time, namely that of Antiochus IV, when a vigorous attempt was made to Hellenize the Jews. Antiochus decreed that they should eat pork, abandon circumcision, and take baths. Most of the Jews in Jerusalem submitted, but in country places resistance was more stubborn and under the leadership of the Maccabees the Jews at last established their right to their peculiar tenets and customs.
Nietzschean1000 2 weeks ago
The first commandment, when it was new, was very difficult to obey because the Jews had believed that Baal and Ashtaroth and Dagon and Moloch and the rest were real gods but were wicked because they helped the enemies of the Jews.
Nietzschean1000 2 weeks ago
The question whether there is a God is one which is decided on very different grounds by different communities and different individuals. The immense majority of mankind accept the prevailing opinion of their own community. In the earliest times of which we have definite history everybody believed in many gods. It was the Jews who first believed in only one.
Nietzschean1000 2 weeks ago
@Nietzschean1000 1. You are incorrect about the Jews. The jews were not the first to create a monotheistic (single deity) religion. Off the top of my head right this second I can think of one major monotheistic religion that predates Judaism (by thousands of years I might add) and this is Hinduism. You may think that they worship many Gods eg (Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesh etc etc) but you are wrong....
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
@Nietzschean1000 It has always been stressed in Hinduism that (the one and only) God has many forms (Shiva and Vishnu being only 2 of these) but they are in essence one and the same being.
Also, how exactly is your assertion that Judaism was the first monotheistic religion at all relevant? Even if they were the first ones, how does that have any bearing on the truth of their religion?
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 2 weeks ago
We assume the note (in this case) is made because every case of a note we have experienced was made. Logical but one does not question nature becuase we have no cases of it occuring via an intelligence.
3) Jesus and the history of God.
If one studys the accuracy of the Bible, church documents, etc. There is much conflict around it. This point seems not as strong when investigation is placed into the history of God
TheBenjaminchan 1 month ago
@TheBenjaminchan 3) While there may be conflict and disagreement amongst laymen as to the accuracy of the Bible and church documents, scholars almost universally agree about many of the historical fact-claims made in the Bible. Namely, the empty tomb of Jesus. The question then becomes: What is the most likely explanation of this fact? The enemies of Christ claimed the disciples had stolen the body. Skeptics say that the disciples hallucinated his resurrection. And those who follow Christ (cont)
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@TheBenjaminchan say that God raised Jesus from the dead.
1) Why would the disciples be willing to not just die, but face constant persecution, over a span of nearly 50 years, for a lie that they perpetrated (in stealing away Jesus' body and claiming he was risen)?
2) There was no disposition for the disciples to believe that Jesus had been bodily resurrected. As Jews, the only resurrection they would have believed would be the resurrection at the end of the world (see John 11:24). (cont)
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@PheonixRise173 There was also no disposition for a Jew to believe that God could have become incarnate, so if they were willing to believe that in contrast to the other Jews, why wouldn't they believe their own hallucination. You underestimate the power of the human mind to deal with cognitive dissonance. It's essentially the reason we still have Jehovah's Witnesses here after the Great Disappointment.
dannytibi 1 month ago
@dannytibi Indeed! They (the disciples) had no disposition, as Jews, to believe that God would become incarnate. Hence the reason there was many attempts on Jesus' life before the crucifixion. Jesus claimed to be God Himself many times, or equal to God (John 8:53 and John 10:30 are great examples).
But it doesn't follow that the disciples would have hallucinated Jesus bodily rising from the dead. The most a hallucination would have done would have shown would have been Jesus' spirit (cont)
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@dannytibi ascended into the bosom of Abraham. Why would the disciples (all Jewish) have any disposition to believe that Jesus had bodily risen from the dead before the judgment (when to Jews believe the only resurrection to be; see John 11:24)? I cannot think of a more conceivable answer other than the disciples saw Jesus as being bodily risen.
1) No one faces 50 years of continual persecution for the sake of a lie
2) Any hallucination would not explain the empty tomb. (cont)
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@dannytibi 3) A true and bodily risen Jesus would, as I said before, best explain both the disciples' belief that Jesus had risen as well as the empty tomb.
Just to make it crystal clear, if the disciples had had a hallucination, all the Sanhedrin would have had to do was roll the stone away from Jesus' tomb and point and laugh at the disciples for being fools.
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@PheonixRise173 Again, you ignore the power of the human mind to effective deal with cognitive dissonance, these men had dedicated their entire lives to Jesus, and their very existential identity was predicated on him being who they believed him to be. You would think the Millerites would have been absolutely discouraged after the obvious failure of their prophet, but today psychologists know that the human mind is almost impervious to religious dis-confirmation when the belief is strong enough.
dannytibi 1 month ago
@dannytibi "their very existential identity was predicated on him being who they believed him to be."
Correct, which is why they abandoned him after he was captured. There was no room for a dying, much less rising Messiah during Yeshua's time. The Jews were all focused on Mashiach bin-David and had all but forgotten about Mashiach bin Yosef.
They was no disposition for them to hallucinate that Jesus was bodily raised (and if they did have that delusion, the Sanhedrin could have rolled (cont)
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@dannytibi back the stone of Yeshua's tomb and pointed and laughed at the disciples for fools -- because EVEN IF the disciples had merely hallucinated Yeshua's bodily resurrection, his body would have still been in the tomb).
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@PheonixRise173 @PheonixRise173
As for the jesus resurrection. There is a vast amount of resurrections mentioned in the new testement i.e the daughter of giles. Do believe this is true?
At the time of the cruxificiton. In Matthew it says that the graves opened and those in the graves left. This makes Jesus's resurrection seem rather.... inconsequntial. No offence intended
TheBenjaminchan 4 weeks ago
@TheBenjaminchan No offence taken. very good question, actually. Yes, I do believe the other resurrections mentioned in the new testament. Paul speaks the best on the matter of why Jesus' resurrection is the most important in his first letter to the church at Corinth. "Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."
Even with all the other resurrections, if Jesus was not risen, then we would still be in our sins. It is the resurrection, (cont)
PheonixRise173 4 weeks ago
@TheBenjaminchan not the crucifixion which delivers people from their sins. Granted, Jesus had to die in order for Him to be resurrected, but there was always the possibility that He might have simply been crucified and remained dead.
PheonixRise173 4 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 You demonstrate that you still don't understand how the human mind deals with cognitive dissonance. Showing the "occupied tomb" would have had no more effect on Jesus' disciples than the simple fact that Jesus did not return on October 22, 1844 had on the followers of William Miller. Don't forget, Harold Camping still has followers despite having been proved wrong twice already.
dannytibi 4 weeks ago
@dannytibi And I think you demonstrate that you still don't understand how the disciples had no disposition to have this supposed hallucination. What about Saul's sudden conversion to Paul? How is that explained through hallucination when, if he did hallucinate, suffered the same hallucination that the disciples did years after they did. And Saul had even less disposition to hallucinate a risen Christ. He hated the followers of the Way, had them imprisoned or stoned to death.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 How do you figure the disciples had no disposition to hallucinate a resurrection? That is a mere assertion on your part, it is baseless and is contradicted by everything we know about human psychology, and particularly the psychology of religion. Religious believers are impervious to dis-confirmation, these men had sacrificed their whole identity to live according to the belief that that man was the messiah, they were committed, they had no where to go back to... (cont..)
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi Perhaps I did not post this earlier, but the disciples had no disposition for the resurrection because as Jews, they did not believe in any form of resurrection until the "last day" (the day of judgment). Ask any scholarly Jew on this matter and I can almost assure you that he will still hold to this view.
The Gospel of John even attests to this matter (see John 11:24).
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 Someone's background, and cultural and religious heritage does not cast in iron the sort of beliefs that they will be pre-disposed to arrive at. That's as ridiculous as saying that since the Buddha was born and raised Hindu he would have had no disposition to come up with a doctrine denying the validity of the caste system, or the Hindu gods. Or that since Mohammed was raised in polytheistic Arabia he would have no disposition towards Monotheism.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi As for the second part of your first post to me, perhaps you forget that I happen to be a religious believer as well. Am I impervious to dis-confirmation?
I agree with you about it being a psychological crisis for them, but why, for any reason would they have suddenly come about saying "Yeshua is risen!"? In Jewish tradition, a dead Messiah is a failed Messiah. Jews don't believe in a resurrection until the last day so why, for any reason, would the disciples do a thing like that?
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 They wouldn't do it for any rational reason, these are not men exhibiting critical thinking skills and applying them to problem solving as you would expect a businessman to... these were men facing an identity crisis, the death of their leader meant that they had nothing to live for... they had turned their backs on their past lives to which they could not simply return and everything would be fine and dandy.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi I don't believe you are at the same level of imperviousness that they were, no. But in a sense, yes, you and many believers of different religions I have met are remarkably resistant to rational persuasion. Not all are alike of course, I have still yet to gage just how impervious you are, but I don't think I will get a very accurate picture over a few YT comments. C'est la vie.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi So you come into the discussion thinking I am a delusional man.
Not the way to win a debate, that's twice that I'm going to have to call you out on an ad hominem.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 Obviously I think you are delusional in the sense that you believe something I regard as false. That is not an ad hominem. I would not toss around that accusation unless my opponent has a made a direct personal insult. I think you are delusional in the sense that you believe a delusion, not in the sense that I think you are an idiot. I obviously don`t or I would not waste my time here.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi I could equally say the same thing -- but then that will get us off to no where. Sigmund Freud said that religion is naught but wish fulfillment brought upon by childish feelings of helplessness and want of immortality.
Half a century later, C. S. Lewis fired back with the counter claim that that holds no more intellectual weight than him saying that irreligion is naught but wish fulfillment brought upon by childish feelings of guilt and a want of freedom from accoutability.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 (cont. prev.)..they had no place to go, if Jesus died, then they lost everything they had sacrificed their entire lives for, they were not about to say, "oh well, he's dead... guess we were wrong then...", no that doesn't just happen that way. Once you are committed to following a charismatic figure to the same level they were you don't just suddenly and cavalierly dismiss what you sacrificed so much for. The death of their leader was a real psychological crisis for them.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 Now, about Saul, he is not the first or only person in history to be reported as having had a sudden and unexpected conversion, there actually is something known as sudden conversion syndrome. Possibly he was psychologically overcome with guilt for persecuting and murdering so many Christians that, at the onset of some neurological event, perhaps a near-death experience, his guilt manifested itself in the form of a vision. The brain is quite powerful like that.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi The Saul problem runs into the same problem with the disciples, but on a much larger scale. Whereas the disciples knew scripture and believed on it, they were rustic country-bumpkins compared to Saul who was a Pharisee, a member of a sect of Judaism dedicated to studying and interpreting the written law into the Jewish "oral law"
Of all people, Saul would have known as a religious and educated Jew that there would be no resurrection until the last day. (cont)
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 Psychology does not respect intellect, education or culture, either you have a sound mind or you don't. Saul for all of his knowledge was very probably racked with guilt, and any sufficiently traumatic experience, like a stroke induced NDE would have easily lead to such a hallucination.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi These are of course, speculations based on second hand accounts acquired from a letter written by someone who may or may have not been Paul, for all I know, who wrote about an event that may or may not have happened to him or someone else he is claiming to be writing as, but even if it did, psychology has a wealth of explanation based on real mental phenomena that can easily explain what happened without appealing to the supernatural.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi Continuing over from my other comment, this is beginning to sound like a "psychology of the gaps" to me.
I also find it funny that since you can't seem to prove your point, you say that the given account of what happened is hogwash anyway. Historical evidence has proven many of the doctrines and beliefs of the early Christian church to within five years of the resurrection of Christ.
With the "psychology of the gaps" and "the accounts being hogwash" it sounds like you're copping out
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 No, you simply missed the point that I was making implicitly, that given the shaky grounds you have for establishing these events as facts, as well as the wealth of possible explanations provided through the science of psychology, you have no warrant for demanding the necessity of invoking the supernatural in order to explain these questionable events.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi Historical evidence, cannot establish any event beyond a reasonable doubt the way forensic science can. If I have DNA, or other forms of uncontroversial physical evidence that testifies John Doe was present at such and such place at such and such place, that would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, historical evidence can only establish events to varying degrees of probability, but never beyond a reasonable doubt.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi So you want to take the verificationist approach. I find it funny that one would question these events, yet one would never question whether or not the events Muhammad or Siddhartha Gautama ever took place.
Quite honestly, that's like me believing that the Apology of Socrates never took place.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 FYI, I don`t believe in any of the supernatural claims concerning Mohammed or Gautama Buddha either.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi Of course, because those are the most easily explained via psychology like everything else.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi Never once did I demand the necessity of it. I simply stated that the best explanation for these events are what the claims in the Bible are, given the anthropological, historical and cultural evidence.
Again, it seems that when you've been backed into a corner, you pull the "well, these events really can't be facts." For what reason? Because they're in the Bible? If these events did not happen (supernatural or hallucinogenic) there wouldn't be Christians today.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 Did I say they can`t be facts? I specifically said, all these events can be accounted for through the study of psychology. I just happen to not be convinced that they must have happened. That ties in to your argument about the best explanation. These events do not demand an explanation, unless they have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. But insofar as I am granting that they did happen for argument sake, I have provided a totally plausible naturalistic account.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi To me, it seems you're frightened of believing in the supernatural because of what it implies and like many of the irreligious before yourself, you use psychology as a way of attempting to explain away certain facts.
Again, you have not. The disciples and Saul had no incentive to believe in a resurrected Jesus if it was a delusion. The Pharisees would have merely rolled back the stone from the tomb and pointed to the truth -- but they didn't. They said the disciples stole the body.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 You are reverting to a position that I have already shown is untenable, namely the idea that Saul and the Disciples were beyond question, sane, impartial, uninvolved, rational actors. The disciples could not afford to give up on what they had started, there were intense emotions playing decisive roles in each case. The occupied tomb would not have dissuaded the hopelessly convinced, just as Arthur Millers failure did not dissuade his followers. Why must we go through this again?
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi Alright, I'll spell it out fully to make it crystal clear. Even if the disciples AND Paul had had a delusion of a risen Jesus, all the Pharisees would have had to do was to roll away the stone and say: "These guys are delusional! Jesus is still in the tomb! Don't believe what they say about him being resurrected! Here's the proof he's not!"
But no, they didn't do that or say that. They said "They stole the body away they're liars!" Thus taking away their most powerful argument (cont)
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 And how exactly would they go about parading the body all over Europe and Asia Minor for everyone to see how the disciples where delusional? In an age of pre-scientific mysticism and superstitious people, with no form of mass communication, you really think reports of miracles could not travel faster than any attempt to present contrary evidence?
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi Heck, even now with all the communication technology we have, we still got people believing in UFOs, Elvis being alive, Sathya Sai Baba, and all manner of ludicrous beliefs.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi That's the minority of the population; but if you want to base it off how many people believe this and that, belief in Adonai is mainstream and also the largest belief held in the world -- a fulfilled prophecy actually, that Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles (non Jews) and bring them into the knowledge of Adonai.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 How did I even imply that I was basing things off numbers. The entire theme that I have been expounding here is the capacity of the human mind to believe fantastic claims no matter how improbable, far fetched, or even how much dis-confirmation one is exposed to. That is why I brought up these modern wackos.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi And I'm pointing out to you that not only are you calling the disciples lunatics but also myself and every other sensible Christian as well. Yes, I do admit that there are lunatics who call themselves Christians, but they do so in name only.
"Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men." (Isaiah 29:13)
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 Well, I have stated before that I do think both you and the disciples believe in a delusion, I don't state that as an offence, or affront towards. I have been very careful not to deliberately and directly insult you. I believe the same about Muslims, as do you. Correct me if I am wrong but you believe that Mohammed was a cult leader and that his disciples were mislead by him, don't you? So what is the problem if I believe the same about your religion.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi They wouldn't need to parade the body. Just send letters about it. Don't mistake the first century culture in Asia Minor and Roman controlled Europe for being ignorant and uneducated. And people did not take kindly to being played with. Today, someone spreading false reports is taken to court and sued. In that age, a person was lucky if he wasn't killed outright for it.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 And what would letters prove? One can write that one has the body of Jesus whether one has it or not. And how would they prove that the disciples were playing with them, living thousands of miles away from were the body is supposed to be?
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi Letters were the ancient world's form of worldwide communication (ours being satellite television). The thing about it is, there is no such letter written by any one that Yeshua's body still remained in the tomb. Instead of saying that the disciple's claims were false (or that they were crazy), the Sanhedrin said that the disciples stole the body. Why? Because there was no body to be found.
If there is one historical claim that can be made about this, it is that the tomb was empty.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 One of many plausible naturalistic explanations would be Bart Ehrman hypothesis about a couple of Jesus's anonymous disciples having actually stolen the body, and encountered Roman soldiers on the way back who kill them unceremoniously, who now have 3 bodies and not knowing were the 3rd one came from dumped all 3 into a river. I don't think this is what actually happened, it's just a hypothesis, but it's a plausible one.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi (cont) for swaying the peoples of Asia Minor and Europe that Jesus was who He claimed to be and that he rose from the dead.
Also, unlike the followers of Arthur Miller, they didn't have anyone after them that would stone them to death if they were caught. On multiple occasions, the disciples of Jesus were captured and stoned by religious authorities and left for dead.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 I would advise you to read up on the Great Dissapointment before stating that the Millerites faced no persecution. They were repeatedly attacked, their churches bombed, they were tarred and feathered and suffered all manner of violence and insults all over the US and Canada. That only strengthened their conviction and dedication to one another and their shared beliefs.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi that was supposed to be burned* not bombed* =P
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi Funny thing about it is that you're actually equating me to the Millerites and the Great Disappointment when the 'prophecies' given to them were false. The reason why the Great Disappointment is named thus is because of a failed prophecy. I'm sorry, I'm not going to follow a cause that is littered with failed prophecies. None of the prophecies given by Adonai in Scripture have ever failed, and this is one of the reasons why I believe in the words of Adonai. He has never been false.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 I bring up the Millerites to illustrate the remarkable resilience of the human mind to obvious dis-confirmation. Which would be case if the resurrection never happened. I am merely using them to show that it is not impossible for people to persist in their belief system even after it has been obviously disproved. Your argument is that it would be impossible for the disciples to continue believing in Jesus if the resurrection had not happened, the Millerites are a counter example.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi My argument wasn't that the disciples would have stopped believing. My argument was that Christianity would not have spread as it did if it had been revealed that Jesus was still in the tomb. Josephus would have made mention about it in his Antiquities.
And strangely enough, your usage of the Millerites confirms this very thing. How wide-spread is this belief now? It's almost non-existent whereas in the first few centuries after Christ, 1 in 27 Romans were Christians.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 You're kidding right? The Millerites today are the 7th Day Adventists, as well as other religious groups that are Adventists in orientation. Over 16,000,000 adherents worldwide. More than 1,000,000 new members since 2009.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi He hated the followers of the Way. Just take a look at many of the Islamic persecutors of Christianity in places like Sudan and Somalia. You do not see Muslims converting out of Islam and becoming Christians because of guilt; and any such Muslims that do convert out of Islam and become Christian only experience guilt after their conversion.
And a hallucination that effected not only the disciples but Saul and 500 hundred other men as well?
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 You seem to know the minds of all Muslims quite well, fascinating.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi Just look at some of the videos posted on youtube about radical Muslim opinions on Christians in places like Sudan and Somalia. Not only that, I've been deployed to Afghanistan, and while there, there where three Christians were abducted and killed by Islamic extremists simply for being Christian. They were civilian contractors, not soldiers at that.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 Ok, and how is that supposed to prove that these people are neurologically incapable of harbouring guilt in their subconscious? I never denied that these people are capable of horrendous acts, that has nothing to with whether or not in principle they are capable of harbouring guilt.
dannytibi 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi What's to say that they don't?
The problem with positing a psychological claim is that you cannot do so about a person unless you sit them down and have a talk with them.
This is, to be frank, quite ludicrous. Would you want to do the same with Socrates? He only had one of his followers write about him whereas Yeshua had many more.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@dannytibi (cont) Furthermore, why would he be overcome with guilt at persecuting and murdering so many that, in his eyes at the time, were followers of a false messiah and a man who spoke blasphemy on the temple steps? When Saul was on the road to Damascus, he wasn't going there to apologize to the followers of the Way that were there; he was going there to have them either imprisoned or stoned to death.
Simply: Saul had no reason for having Sudden Conversion Syndrome.
PheonixRise173 3 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173
1) 1) Why would the disciples be willing to not just die.. etc
This is the assumption that biblical statements about the disciples are true. Not saying it isn't but perhaps some historical evidence?
2) Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." That John 11:24. A little confused what you're contending a point 2.
TheBenjaminchan 4 weeks ago
@TheBenjaminchan 1) Don't forget that the letters of Paul and the rest of the apostles are considered by most scholars to be historical documents. These were not originally tied in with the gospels written about Jesus but were letters sent to different churches around Asia Minor and Europe.
2) I was contending that even in the gospels, the Jews portray the same beliefs they have today -- that there will be no resurrection until the last day. A Jew would have been thought crazy if he said else.
PheonixRise173 4 weeks ago
@TheBenjaminchan 3) Though this would be unexplainable through purely material causes, it would be the best cause in order to explain both the missing body from the tomb as well as the extraordinary testimony the disciples of Jesus gave. That Jesus was bodily raised from the dead.
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
2) When you look at intelligibility, you always assume an intelligence behind it.
Again by using his large vocabulary this point seems valid but it is the infamous watch makers analogy.
It still doesn't prove Gods existence. Unless we are the intelligiblity... Therefore one may conclude that the intelligence behind it is God. But this is false. Humans, tress, animals, planets, UNIVERSE... are all naturally occuring. Natural occuring requires no intelligence behind it to continue.
TheBenjaminchan 1 month ago
@TheBenjaminchan 2) I find this point (while well thought) to be a non-sequitur. Correct me if I'm wrong but what you seem to be saying is:
1) The argument to design would be evidence for the existence God if we are the intelligiblity mentioned in the argument.
2) Humans are naturally occuring things.
3) Naturally occuring things do not need an intelligence behind them
4) Therefore, Humans do not need an intelligence behind them.
I do not think that premise 3 follows here, (cont)
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@TheBenjaminchan for if there is a creator of the universe, an uncaused cause, then this uncaused cause, this creator, would be the cause of naturally occuring things. Therefore, I propose this:
1) The argument to design would be evidence for the existence God if we are the intelligiblity mentioned in the argument.
2) Humans are naturally occuring things.
3) Naturally occuring things were first caused by God
4) Therefore, humans are the products of God's intelligence.
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@PheonixRise173
The watchmakers anaology.
I was directing that Ravi used something that is unatural. A note. He then goes to extrapolate that to everything. There is nature and there is a made artifact. One cannot expand the made to the natural. They are two different occuring things.
However to say that the motion that created the natural occuring was God. The preposition you made can only be proved if god is proven.
TheBenjaminchan 4 weeks ago
@TheBenjaminchan The preposition I gave wasn't so much a 'proof' of God, rather to say that God is the best explanation for the naturally occuring. Considering all the physical laws of the universe, we're left with three options. Necessity, chance, or design.
1) The laws could only be due to necessity if the universe created itself -- and the universe could have only created itself if the universe and it's necessary laws existed prior to itself.
(cont)
PheonixRise173 4 weeks ago
@TheBenjaminchan 2) Considering the appearent fine-tuning of the laws, as many have often put it (including Ravi himself) "I cannot believe that the dictionary came about because of an explosion in the printing-press." The same holds true with these laws of the universe. These laws contain information and there are three things required for information: 1) an intelligence to place the information into a medium, 2) a medium to contain the information and, 3) an intelligence to extract it.
PheonixRise173 4 weeks ago
@TheBenjaminchan So I therefore conclude that with 3) The universe was designed, and the only thing that fits the description of that designer is God. (one could simply refer to this 'designer' as a 'creator' but that's just a redundance of words since Elohim, 'God' in hebrew, means 'creator').
PheonixRise173 4 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173
So now we have hit a brick wall and must prove god for the subsequent premises to be true. Premises being
1) The argument to design would be evidence for the existence God if we are the intelligiblity mentioned in the argument etc
TheBenjaminchan 4 weeks ago
@TheBenjaminchan Like I said in answering one of your earlier comments, information requires three things: 1) an intelligence to place information into a medium, 2) a medium to contain the information, and 3) another intelligence to extract the information from the medium. We are number 3 as we are constantly discovering information in the universe. The question then becomes who or what put it there? The only answer I find to give this question justice is the creator and designer, God.
PheonixRise173 4 weeks ago
His utlises arguements that have been recited by many religious people. Although he does state these three points in a much more formal language, rather than that of the average person.
1) "No physical quantity explains itself"
Stating that something prior is the reason to that reality existence in itself. If you were to state "what about God?" Would not God require a prior reason for existence? Probable that then he would make an exception to his own arguement. Which is somewhat illogical
TheBenjaminchan 1 month ago
@TheBenjaminchan Just a quick response to some of the points you've made here, which are all very reasonable.
1) What you seem to be positing is the same question that Carl Sagan once asked: "If God created the universe, who created God?" Ravi defines God as being infinite (and therefore eternal), and therefore, always existing. The uncaused cause of all things. Now one can say that the universe itself could be the uncaused cause but as Alexander Vilenkin showed on Stephan Hawking's (cont)
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@TheBenjaminchan ... 70th birthday: "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." Following the Kalam cosmological argument:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
But this argument alone (in my opinion) does not point evidence to a theistic creator, more of a deistic one.
PheonixRise173 1 month ago
@PheonixRise173 First of all before I retort, congratulations on forulating a intelligence response with no profanity used. To many responses i receive are poorly thought out.
The Kalam cosmological arguement
There are a few of problems with this argument I believe. When we look a the first premise, it simply seems untrue in light of our understanding of quantum mechanics. Another example is the decay of carbon, which demonstrates things to exist without a cause.
TheBenjaminchan 4 weeks ago
@TheBenjaminchan I was a bit confused at first what you were refering to the decay of carbon about, but I looked it up and understood.
The problem with using the decay of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 is that even though the decay appears to be random and 'causeless' ... at least you have the Carbon-14 to begin with. Carbon-12 does not pop into being out of literal nothingness; there's something prior to it.
In the same way, I find it illogical to say the universe popped into being from nothingness.
PheonixRise173 4 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173
To say God is infinite and eternal.
The problem found in this is that it contains its own refutation when accompanied with the Kalam cosmological arguement. First everything has a cause and then immediatly the exception created to this is god. Seems illogical.
Quick question. Is God in our time realm or in any place where time exists?
TheBenjaminchan 4 weeks ago
@TheBenjaminchan In response to your quick question, no. God exists beyond time. He is without time, hence why He is eternal.
That being said, if God exists beyond time and without it, then He does need to have a cause. Being that God is eternal, He has always existed. This was said about the universe for millenia, that the universe was eternal. Modern cosmology has shown otherwise.
PheonixRise173 4 weeks ago
@PheonixRise173 Boy, I'm jumping into this without reading the whole exchange, but my view is faith. God said it, that settles it. If i had to understand & know the intricacies of creation & life, I'd be , well, not God, but a lot closer! My view is that if there is a God (which I believe), then He can reveal Himself or not (He does). He loves us and preserve His Word. Jesus said He was The Way, The Truth, The Life. Either He was lying, or telling the truth.
greenwich1754 3 weeks ago
@greenwich1754 Can you prove any of this?
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 weeks ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 No, but again it's faith, based oh historical evidence. Just a quick example. The Gospel of Luke mentions historical places, names (e.g. King Herod) & times, which (I have been told) are all verifiable. So if the writer is correct with these things, are we then to suppose that he lied concerning a person named Jesus, and His assertion that He was the Son of God, died on the cross, and rose again? They still can't prove Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and that was only 1963
greenwich1754 3 weeks ago
@greenwich1754 All the gospels were written years after any of the witnesses were dead. They don't even know who actually wrote the gospels. On the matter of absolute truth, I don't think there is any due to the theory of relativity, on this I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
SuperBspb 3 weeks ago
@greenwich1754 Oh come on. Just because the bible mentions real places doesn't automatically make it reasonable to assume everything in it is true. Just because Spiderman is set in New York, a real place, doesn't mean Spiderman and all the evil supervillians exist! I have absolutely no idea how you managed to draw a conclusion like that, I really don't...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 weeks ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 I managed to draw a conclusion based on verifiable historical names, places & time(s). People do it all the time - the old "it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well probably a duck (but not proven). I find nearly all people who don't believe in Christ is because of the eternal consequences of rejecting Him if He was who He says He was. Why would men write a book that has moral/ethical laws that no one can live up to? We are all sinners, and Jesus came to save us.
greenwich1754 3 weeks ago
@greenwich1754 Please elaborate on how you came to these conclusions. Erm no, the are actually specific criteria as to what defines a 'duck'. Yes, people often assume things... and when they do this, they are also prone to getting it wrong. Are you implying that when people assume things, it is likely they are correct? Because that is demonstrably false...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 weeks ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 So you're saying that all assumptions are false? Sure, an assumption can be wrong, but it can also be right. There is also the word "faith". If everything needed tangible "hold in your hand, see with your eyes" first person confirmation, then there would be no need for the word "faith" in the dictionary. If I could prove/explain/understand EVERYTHING, then I guess I'd be, well, god. We exercise faith in mundane things, as we trust a chair will support us when we sit.
greenwich1754 3 weeks ago
@greenwich1754 I seriously don't understand why creationists always like to twist the words of HONEST people. I was addressing your duck analogy by saying people that often make uneducated assumptions as to what species a bird comes under are prone to getting it wrong. I didn't say "all assumptions are false." Do you people get tired lying and spreading misinformation? Doesn't it weigh on your conscience? Or do you do it subconsciously? This is what irritates me the most about you people....
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 weeks ago
@greenwich1754 "We exercise faith in mundane things, as we trust a chair will support us when we sit." That is an extremely misleading example. We do not use 'faith' in the way you put it. We use evidence and reasoned logic. Chairs are built to sit on and support our weight. Pretty much every one of us has sat in chairs countless times before and thus we have seen first hand multiple times that they are capable of holding us. This is the evidence. Thus we can reason that...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 weeks ago
@greenwich1754 ... they will almost definitely support our weight, so it becomes a none issue.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 weeks ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Ok, the chair analogy is certainly not on the par of faith in God. As to the duck analogy, I was using that as a general phrase meaning if one is given a certain set of information, one draws a conclusion, based on experience/deductive reasoning, I wasn't referring to a literal duck per se. I'll accept the uneducated, ignorant, stupid, whatever else you want to brandish me, but I certainly don't intentionally "lie". For someone called "FrankieSayRelaxxx" you seem uptight.
greenwich1754 3 weeks ago
@greenwich1754 Then how did you get from people who make assumptions are prone to getting it wrong" to "all assumptions are false"? There is no way you could take one of those statements as meaning the same as the other. You just can't. I seem "uptight" because creationists do this all the time. Whether they do it on purpose I'm not sure. But they do do it.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 3 weeks ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 Don't take everything so literally - I used "people using assumptions are prone to getting it wrong"/"all assumptions are false" as extreme hyperbole to show that you (by your response) admit that some assumptions are correct. I know I'll never convince you that I believe Jesus is the only hope for salvation from our sins and eternal life, so after all this, I'm curious on your take on religion(s), or are you an atheist? To me, it takes more "faith" to be an atheist.
greenwich1754 3 weeks ago