 |  438731 | Feb 8, 4:43pm | Where does the Idea of "God" really come from?
That's easy... ancestor worship. |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Ewtn2000 | Feb 8, 5:11pm | | Well, that is true, but do we just say that it's "turtles all the way down"? Or do we take the time to research this question that has always been with us but no one wants to know? |
|
| | | 438731 | Feb 11, 12:26am | | Isn't it the theist who insists that it's turtles all the way down? |
|
| 
| |
| | | 438731 | Feb 11, 9:44am | | Thanks Eat. Just to clarify, I likened the turtles analogy to the oft heard, Christian position that god is eternal and has no cause/exists outside of time obscurantism (to avoid the infinite regression argument). |
|
| 
|  fireforchrist | Feb 11, 1:54pm | This conversation is stale.
The Best evidence that we have that Jesus rose from the dead is
1> Jesus was a real person in history.
2> The Apostles were witnesses and they wrote a very good account of the event.
That is the natural evidence and the way to prove that Jesus rose from the dead is to back up the account of the gospels as being a very good account and accurate historical record. There is one other line of defense and that is that there should be evidence of the Holy Spirit working today if God actually sent it from heaven as Jesus said He would.
I do not have time to defend this but that is what I would defend if I were to defend the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, I would defend the account of the gospels and Acts. Because I have not the time why don't you prove to all that the Gospel account is false and I want evidence that would stand up in court. If you can't do that then leave this forum because you talk in ignorance about things you do not know. |
|
| 
| | JRyanStevens | Feb 11, 3:25pm | 46. If you can't do that then leave this forum because you talk in ignorance about things you do not know.
Woah there partner. This is an Apologetics forum. You're supposed to be the one providing evidence for your religious doctrine. I'm in this forum because I'm interested in the topic of evidence for religious beliefs. (And on a side note, don't we all "talk in ignorance about things [we] do not know?" Lol.)
It would be totally against the spirit of this forum to force people who are "ignorant" of the evidence for your beliefs to leave.
Since this is an Apologetics forum, if you cannot give positive evidence supporting your beliefs "that would stand up in court," shouldn't you be the one to leave? (Just to clarify, I'd never ask anyone who's sincerely exploring a topic to leave... but in principle, if you're the apologetic advocate and you cannot support your beliefs with evidence, on what grounds would you ask others to leave?)
Jesus was a real person in history.
There were many (real) people claiming to be Deliverers in that time period. They had many followers and their churches lasted hundreds of years. There were also religions with similar details and accounts as the Gospels, but those stories (which were taken literally at the time) are now assumed to be fictional. What are the distinctions?
The Apostles were witnesses and they wrote a very good account of the event.
There were also many witnesses of Jesus' rivals. While Jesus' accounts are obviously the best publicized, the others also had written accounts of their miracles. If you accept the account of Jesus because it was written down by witnesses, why dismiss these other accounts? |
|
|
| | fireforchrist | Feb 11, 4:27pm | Ok, I had no right to tell anyone to leave. I can try to support with evidence what I believe I just feel that I have not the time. No one ever gets anywhere on this forum and I do not know that it will ever. Give me a good reason why I should take the time to defend this when I could be doing other things, I usually end up being like a bull in a china closet with a bunch of hornets, why would it be good for me to "try" to defend something I believe and you all will never believe without the Holy Spirit doing some kind of miracle. Maybe it would be better if I let those who do not rock the boat continue defending this point of faith. What is the verdict, my red eyed jury should I take up the battle in the china closet to prove to you that china was made in China?
You see I could try to prove to you that Jesus is alive in my life but that is like trying to prove to you that I am eating a pear right now (I am). As much as I know that the pear is real that I am eating, I can not transfer that knowledge to you. This is why I thought if I can not prove this to you why don't I get you to prove the opposite? If you then present your proof we can put that under scrutiny and see if you really have proven anything. That is what lead to the court of law statement.
The Apostles were witnesses and they wrote a very good account of the event.
The reason the above is evidence is because it is where I would start, it is not the end but the beginning premise and if this could not be shown to be true then you can not defend the resurrection with logic. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | lesoldham | Feb 11, 5:12pm |
you all will never believe without the Holy Spirit doing some kind of miracle
This is not necessarily an unreasonable thing to ask. In one place in the Gospels Jesus said "you simply won't believe unless you see signs" and in another He says "if I had not done the works (signs) I did they would have no guilt" (my paraphrase) This suggests that miracles are necessary for some to believe. When Thomas was doubting that Jesus had resurrected he said he would have to see for himself to believe and Jesus did not withhold that evidence from him. God is willing to give evidence to true doubters but many maintain that nothing can count as evidence. These will not be convinced even if they see miracles.
|
|
|
| | JRyanStevens | Feb 11, 7:06pm | 48. I can try to support with evidence what I believe I just feel that I have not the time.
No one is blaming you for not having time. That's life. You shouldn't feel pressured to participate. If you want to, then please do so.
why would it be good for me to "try" to defend something I believe...
It is always good to understand your reasons for believing anything. Communicating these reasons to others is an excellent method to explore them. "The void created by the failure to communicate is soon filled with poison, drivel and misrepresentation" (C. Northcote Parkinson). That's another reason why I'm here. Daniel Dennett has said, "The only meaning of life worth caring about is one that can withstand our best efforts to examine it."
... you all will never believe without the Holy Spirit doing some kind of miracle.
Not true. Simply evidence; something objective. More on this in response to Les' entry.
I read an interesting question awhile ago (paraphrased, and here's the link): How can faith be used as the basis of a theory of knowledge when it does not provide a means or method of discerning true claims from false ones? In other words, faith itself does not determine if the thing, person, or idea in which trust is placed is true or false; there is no method. If by its very nature (not requiring evidence), faith offers no insight into truth, why should faith serve any role at all in our pursuit of truth?
I usually end up being like a bull in a china closet with a bunch of hornets... should I take up the battle in the china closet to prove to you that china was made in China?
LOL! You know what's ironic about this question? Do you know how they date pottery? They cut or drill a small piece of it and heat it up to determine how much light it produces; but I'm sure smashed pottery would work just as well. So by all means, romp away!
There's an inspiring exchange written by the Jesuit Anthony de Mello (I'm paraphrasing): a disappointed visitor asks, "Why has my stay here yielded no fruit?" The master responds benignly, "Could it be because you lacked the courage to shake the tree?"
49. God is willing to give evidence to true doubters but many maintain that nothing can count as evidence.
I certainly don't fall into this category. I would consider a miracle (something contrary to nature's laws) evidence for the existence of something beyond this natural world, but nothing of the sort occurs today. If God would restore an amputee's lost limb, he'd certainly have my attention (and no, I'm not saying this is the only way I'll believe, it's just an example of something contrary to nature). Have miracles occurred in the past? If so, what would be a good reason for believing the Gospel miracles over similar accounts by different spiritual leaders?
I understand that people use their personal experiences as reasons for believing, but this isn't an objective standard. All religions confer these convictions. All religions cannot be true; they make contrary statements. But if they all have witness accounts of miracles, and no miracles are being done today, and they all have personal conviction from their God, what is left? Faith cannot determine if something is true or false--all religions cannot be true, yet all have faith. |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion
eat