glassjester
Well-known member
The claim of the Christian is that God has shown Himself. He even came here to live among us, as one of us, even died as one of us, came back from death to show His love for us and to prove His divinity.
Cradlers
- Thread starter Nihilo
- Start date
The claim of the Christian is that God has shown Himself. He even came here to live among us, as one of us, even died as one of us, came back from death to show His love for us and to prove His divinity.
Sure, but if I agree that everything has a cause, what caused your God?
I know what the claim is. So what?
glassjester
Well-known member
Yeah, that infinite regress could be a problem. Well, there can't be an infinite series of causes - it's logically impossible.
There has to be a first, uncaused cause. Doesn't there?
glassjester
Well-known member
If there is a God, the Christian God fits your criteria.
He's allegedly provided evidence for His existence and His love for man, in the incarnation.
dont know, but if there is, why is it your particular deity? Maybe it is Q from Star Trek?
But I have to buy the accuracy of your Holy Book to accept that, and I don't.
glassjester
Well-known member
Right - the uncaused cause, at this point, wouldn't necessarily be the Christian God.
But it's definitely not Q. Q exists within the spacetime, therefore Q could not be the cause of spacetime.
Whatever the uncaused cause is, it must exist independently of and logically prior to space and time. Right?
glassjester
Well-known member
No. The claims of Christ's resurrection predate the New Testament. The first few centuries of Christianity did not depend on the veracity of the Bible, because there was no Bible.
There was an Old Testament
You don't know that Q only exists within spacetime.
glassjester
Well-known member
Sure I do. They're mortal (they can die), and they aren't omnipotent (their powers can be forcefully removed), and their species used to be just like humans - they evolved within the physical universe.
Therefore they could not have existed independently of the physical universe (spacetime). And since it is logically possible for them to not exist, they are contingent beings - not necessary ones.
But there must be a non-contingent being - something which must necessarily exist. Do you agree?
glassjester
Well-known member
Sure - but you didn't need to believe the OT in order to hear the Gospel. Otherwise preaching to gentiles would have been impossible - yet the majority of first century Christians were gentiles.
Did they become Christians based on their acceptance of the OT? No. They became Christians based on the testimony of Christ's resurrection.
:up:
Anybody can make up a story. Anybody can travel around and preach the made up story. Anybody can believe the story. The sticking point is the death penalty that befell Stephen, and James the son of Zebedee, brother of the Apostle John, both recorded in Acts, and James the just, author of the eponymous epistle in the New Testament, recorded in Josephus, and the Apostles Peter and Paul, recorded in an epistle written by Clement to the Corinthians (Peter's death obscurely referenced in the Gospel of John also), before the close of the first century. There are other less reliable accounts of the rest of the Apostles being executed also, but the deaths of the five men I mentioned are pretty solid. Why wouldn't at least one of them, before being killed, say, "OK OK OK! We made it up! Peter/Paul/whomever made it all up, and I recant my testimony, please don't kill me! I've got kids!"
jsanford108
New member
Jonahdog,
Your arguments in this thread are historical in nature. You claim "why believe what a bunch of old guys cooked up centuries ago" (paraphrased)? Yet, many accept the historical analysis of ancient texts without question. Such as Hammurabi's Code. We accept that it is a code of law, established from various historical and archaeological evidences. The same with Mayan histories. Even ancient Greek histories. So why not accept the single most accurate, written closest to the events of its happening, archaic historical text in the world? Secular sources make the same claims that are made in the Bible. Roman soldiers' letters detail the exact same events as found in the Gospel according to Luke and Acts (Luke being a Hebrew Historian).
Have you ever examined St. Thomas Aquinas' "Five Ways?"
In my opinion, it does a sufficient job of addressing basic arguments as means of proving God's existence. As I stated in a different conversation with you, the argument for God's existence is not a purely scientific one; as science can only explain the natural, and God exists beyond the natural realm (supernatural). One can only proceed with logic and reason, utilizing natural examples (history, archaeology, biological, chemical, etc), to point to or negate God's existence.
Your arguments in this thread are historical in nature. You claim "why believe what a bunch of old guys cooked up centuries ago" (paraphrased)? Yet, many accept the historical analysis of ancient texts without question. Such as Hammurabi's Code. We accept that it is a code of law, established from various historical and archaeological evidences. The same with Mayan histories. Even ancient Greek histories. So why not accept the single most accurate, written closest to the events of its happening, archaic historical text in the world? Secular sources make the same claims that are made in the Bible. Roman soldiers' letters detail the exact same events as found in the Gospel according to Luke and Acts (Luke being a Hebrew Historian).
Have you ever examined St. Thomas Aquinas' "Five Ways?"
In my opinion, it does a sufficient job of addressing basic arguments as means of proving God's existence. As I stated in a different conversation with you, the argument for God's existence is not a purely scientific one; as science can only explain the natural, and God exists beyond the natural realm (supernatural). One can only proceed with logic and reason, utilizing natural examples (history, archaeology, biological, chemical, etc), to point to or negate God's existence.
glassjester
Well-known member
This is why I asked him for the best evidence he's been given for God. It seems he hasn't really been given any.
In which case... who can blame him for not believing?
glassjester
Well-known member
Right.
Or heck, why would they even bother to make it up in the first place?
I'm sure you're familiar with C.S. Lewis' trilemma. Christ is either lunatic, liar, or Lord. A similar argument could be made for the Apostles.
Shortly after Christ's death, they went around proclaiming His resurrection. Either they were lying, mistaken, or correct.
Honestly, their being correct makes more sense than either of the other two.
Here's the difference between Hammurabi's Code and the Bible. Hammurabi's Code is simply a set of old laws. the Bible claims to be the Word of God and demands that people live their life according to it or face everlasting damnation. See the difference?
And sorry, the musings of a 13th century Dominican does nothing for me in the 21st century.
Yes, science deals with the natural. It does not point to or negate God's existence. It doesn't care about God.
Sure I have, lots of purported evidence. It just does not mean anything, it does not overcome the evidence from the natural world.
Sorry, you lost that particular argument on 9/11.