Why I believe in God

[Archaeopteryx]

No.

And I do not expect Davian or you to accept anything I say.

Then why bother making the claim in the first place?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Then why bother making the claim in the first place?

Because there are more people in these forums than you and Davian.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because there are more people in these forums than you and Davian.

And why would you expect them to be convinced by it when you admit that you would not be convinced if someone of another religion made a similar claim?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

And why would you expect them to be convinced by it when you admit that you would not be convinced if someone of another religion made a similar claim?

for the same reason I would expect them to be convinced if I told them the earth was round while a flat-earther was telling them the earth was flat.

the shape of the earth is a matter of fact, not of fancy or opinion.

Likewise, God raising Jesus bodily from the dead for the remission of sin is a matter of fact, not fancy or opinion. It either happened or it did not. If it did, then all other religions that deny it are false.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

for the same reason I would expect them to be convinced if I told them the earth was round while a flat-earther was telling them the earth was flat.

the shape of the earth is a matter of fact, not of fancy or opinion.

Likewise, God raising Jesus bodily from the dead for the remission of sin is a matter of fact, not fancy or opinion. It either happened or it did not. If it did, then all other religions that deny it are false.

Would you be convinced by someone of another religion insisting that their doctrines are matters of fact? Once again, if you wouldn't be convinced of that when someone of another religion does it, why expect anyone here to be convinced of it when you do it?

 

[ForJesusChrist]

I agree. It is very clear and simple that God created everything. How else would stuff just appear? You also cannot say you agree with the conservation of mass but at the same time believe that the universe has just been here all along. How can there even be matter if nothing can be created? Everything, life, trees, planets, etc had to come from God.

God Bless

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree. It is very clear and simple that God created everything. How else would stuff just appear? You also cannot say you agree with the conservation of mass but at the same time believe that the universe has just been here all along. How can there even be matter if nothing can be created? Everything, life, trees, planets, etc had to come from God.

God Bless

This seems to be an argument from incredulity. We know that natural processes are capable of producing complex systems, whether they be planetary orbits or the diversity of life. We can explain these things without invoking the magical intervention of supernatural beings.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is very clear and simple that God created everything.

Clear and simple? Sure.

But not everything about reality is clear and simple.

You also cannot say you agree with the conservation of mass but at the same time believe that the universe has just been here all along. How can there even be matter if nothing can be created?

The answer is that mass wasn't created, but was here all along.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

You are wrong.


Why?

I could make a claim, i.e. that I am not guilty of a crime of which I have been accused and not be able to demonstrate to anyone that my claim is true and the claim could still be true. The truthfulness of my claim is determined by whether or not it corresponds with the actual state of affairs which it claims to, not whether or not I can prove it or demonstrate it. Surely you have heard of people maintaining their innocence while being accused of and even convicted of a crime only later to be vindicated and acquitted due to some turn of events which demonstrate that their claim was true all along?

The analogy blows up in your face in that (most) judicial systems are evidence based, for both your hypothetical conviction and later acquittal. Evidence of the type that rises above "personal experience".

I said all of that to be charitable to you.

Only if you are giving out laughs.

I for one am convinced God has demonstrated in a very public way that Christ was who He said He was. This was done when God raised Christ from the dead in accordance with scripture.

The power of circular reasoning. A story you get from scripture is not validated by scripture. That you are convinced of its veracity is no indicator of it actually having happened, any more than my belief in Santa makes him any more real.

 

[Davian]

No.

And I do not expect Davian or you to accept anything I say.

Then why bother making the claim in the first place?

Because there are more people in these forums than you and Davian.

Are you not concerned that your posts will appear to those others as empty rhetoric, in the light of our comments?

I was one of those lurkers, and now I am here.

 

[Davian]

for the same reason I would expect them to be convinced if I told them the earth was round while a flat-earther was telling them the earth was flat.

the shape of the earth is a matter of fact, not of fancy or opinion.

Likewise, God raising Jesus bodily from the dead for the remission of sin is a matter of fact, not fancy or opinion.

It is not a fact any more than the presents under the tree are evidence for Santa for the children that believe.

It either happened or it did not.

Not a fact, then.

If it did, then all other religions that deny it are false.

I have yet to see a coherent case put forth for why I should believe it did happen.

 

[Davian]

I agree. It is very clear and simple that God created everything.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

How else would stuff just appear?

Sometimes the answer is "we do not know".

You also cannot say you agree with the conservation of mass but at the same time believe that the universe has just been here all along.

I do not say or believe that.

How can there even be matter if nothing can be created?

I was not aware of any mainstream astrophysicists positing theories that violated these principles that you allude to. Perhaps you could elucidate.

Everything, life, trees, planets, etc had to come from God.

Why?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree. It is very clear and simple that God created everything. How else would stuff just appear? You also cannot say you agree with the conservation of mass but at the same time believe that the universe has just been here all along. How can there even be matter if nothing can be created? Everything, life, trees, planets, etc had to come from God.

God Bless

IDK is my legitimate response to how the universe began. But just because I don't know doesn't make "god" a more valid answer.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Would you be convinced by someone of another religion insisting that their doctrines are matters of fact?

If they were matters of fact, yes.

Once again, if you wouldn't be convinced of that when someone of another religion does it, why expect anyone here to be convinced of it when you do it?

People saw Jesus raise a dead man to life, give a man blind from birth his sight and cause the lame to walk and still were not convinced He was the Son of the Living God, the herald of the Kingdom of God into human history.

Just because people are given evidence that a claim is true does not necessarily mean they will be convinced of the claim. There are many factors which could have caused the unbelieving to remain unbelievers even after having been furnished with signs and wonders. Pride, and the desire to be honored and glorified among men (enter the religious leaders of Jesus' day). are just a few that come to mind.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The analogy blows up in your face in that (most) judicial systems are evidence based, for both your hypothetical conviction and later acquittal. Evidence of the type that rises above "personal experience".

You are trying to paint over personal experience with broad brush strokes with black paint in an attempt to erase it completely from the list of resources we have for ascertaining the veracity of a truth claim.

What you are trying to do in essence is say that unless a claim can be demonstrated to be true to a lot of people (how large this number must be and why it must be this specific number you have yet to even begin to explain, but I digress) then we cannot trust the claim.

The glaring hole in your logic is due to your failure to account for the fact that the New Testament gives us the account of God raising Jesus from the dead, not in some dark corner away from the rest of humanity, but rather, from the very place He was buried. This was in Jerusalem, on the Sunday following His crucifixion, in a city still bustling with literally hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world. Does not the scripture say that Jesus later appeared to hundreds who beheld Him before ascending into heaven?

Come on Davian, I think you have read enough of the New Testament to know that, as Paul stated to King Agrippa, this thing was not done in a corner. Paul appealed to King Agrippa's knowledge of the events in question when he says: "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner."

I have seen several people resort to being total historical skeptics just so they can label the accounts of the New Testament authors as "unreliable". If historical skepticism is how you avoid coming to terms with what they wrote, then I would say that is just one more piece of evidence for the veracity of their testimony.

The power of circular reasoning. A story you get from scripture is not validated by scripture. That you are convinced of its veracity is no indicator of it actually having happened, any more than my belief in Santa makes him any more real.

I never said you should believe Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible says so. I would appeal to evidence such as the empty tomb, accounts of Jesus' post mortem appearances to hundreds, and the disciple's sudden conviction that Jesus was alive as a few lines of evidence for starters. These three lines of evidence are agreed upon by virtually all New Testament scholars.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It is not a fact any more than the presents under the tree are evidence for Santa for the children that believe.

I said it was a matter of fact, i.e. a matter subject to investigation and inquiry.

I have yet to see a coherent case put forth for why I should believe it did happen.

God is not through with you yet!

 

[keith99]

I never said you should believe Jesus rose from the dead because the Bible says so. I would appeal to evidence such as the empty tomb, accounts of Jesus' post mortem appearances to hundreds, and the disciple's sudden conviction that Jesus was alive as a few lines of evidence for starters. These three lines of evidence are agreed upon by virtually all New Testament scholars.

All of which are recorded in just one place.

A handful of people saying hundreds saw something is not the same as hundreds of people seeing something.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

All of which are recorded in just one place.

This is incorrect. I will let Dr Craig explain:

"One of the other lines of evidence in favor of the empty tomb is that it is multiply and independently attested in very early sources. The account of Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea and the women’s discovery of the empty tomb is part of Mark’s source material for the Passion story (the story of Jesus’ suffering and death). Mark is the earliest of the four Gospels, so this pre-Markan Passion story is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony. Moreover, in I Corinthians 15.3-5 Paul quotes an old Christian tradition that he had received from the earliest disciples. Paul probably received this tradition no later than his visit to Jerusalem in A.D. 36 (Galatians 1:18), if not earlier in Damascus. It therefore goes back to within the first five years after Jesus’ death in A.D. 30. Although the empty tomb is not explicitly mentioned in this tradition, a comparison of the four-line formula with the Gospel narratives on the one hand and the sermons in Acts on the other reveals that the third line is, in fact, a summary of the empty tomb story.

Not only so, but there are good reasons to discern independent sources for the empty tomb in the other Gospels and Acts. Matthew is clearly working with an independent source, for he includes the story of the guard at the tomb, which is unique to his Gospel. Moreover, his comment about how the rumor that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body “has been spread among Jews till this day” (Matthew 28.15) shows that Matthew is responding to prior tradition. Luke also has an independent source, for he tells the story, not found in Mark, of two disciples’ visiting the tomb to verify the women’s report that the tomb was vacant. The story can’t be regarded as Luke’s creation, since the incident is independently reported in John. And, given John’s independence of the other three Gospels, we have there yet another independent report of the empty tomb. Finally, in the sermons in the book of Acts, we again have indirect references to the empty tomb. For example, Peter draws the sharp contrast, “David died and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day,” but “this Jesus God has raised up” (Acts 2.29-32; compare 13.36-7).

Historians think they’ve hit historical pay dirt when they have two independent accounts of the same event. But in the case of the empty tomb we have no less than six, and some of these are among the earliest materials to be found in the New Testament. Thus, we have very strong historical grounds for affirming that Jesus’ tomb was already known by the disciples to be empty even before they departed Jerusalem for Galilee."



Read more: On an Argument for the Empty Tomb | Reasonable Faith

And all of the above is independent attestation for just the empty tomb. The disciple's belief that Jesus had risen is attested to in several different extra-biblical sources as well.

A handful of people saying hundreds saw something is not the same as hundreds of people seeing something.

It is if the handful are speaking the truth when they say they saw that same something that the hundreds saw.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If they were matters of fact, yes.




People saw Jesus raise a dead man to life, give a man blind from birth his sight and cause the lame to walk and still were not convinced He was the Son of the Living God, the herald of the Kingdom of God into human history.

People also reportedly saw Muhammad ascend into heaven, and many insist this is a matter of fact. Yet I notice that you are not a Muslim.

Just because people are given evidence that a claim is true does not necessarily mean they will be convinced of the claim. There are many factors which could have caused the unbelieving to remain unbelievers even after having been furnished with signs and wonders. Pride, and the desire to be honored and glorified among men (enter the religious leaders of Jesus' day). are just a few that come to mind.

Are you describing personal reasons for why you do not believe in Islam? If pride and the desire to be glorified are not your reasons for not accepting Islam then why assume that they are anyone's reason for not accepting Christianity?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

People also reportedly saw Muhammad ascend into heaven, and many insist this is a matter of fact. Yet I notice that you are not a Muslim.

Very keen observation.

Are you describing personal reasons for why you do not believe in Islam? If pride and the desire to be glorified are not your reasons for not accepting Islam then why assume that they are anyone's reason for not accepting Christianity?

Why assume you ask?

Who said I was assuming?

I am simply giving some of the reasons why the unbelieving continued in unbelief even after having witnessed signs and wonders done by Jesus. It is in the scripture. It is plain to see. Does not Jesus ask:

"How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"