We're wired to infer agency, not God. It took a long time to get from animism to monotheism.

There are millions of adult deconversions every year too. Being consistent with your argument, what does that indicate?

(April 12, 2017 at 8:17 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 10, 2017 at 9:24 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Evidence, but not convincing evidence, at least not for me and many others. 

If jesus was god (that whole trinity thing) and god can do anything (that whole omnipotent thing) then it should not be a problem for god to show up and put an end to the lack of convincing evidence. Evidence any anyone holding any belief would be able to say "that is god, I'm convinced". 


So SteveII, why doesn't this happen?

1. Most people do not start with "there is no God". We are wired to believe in the supernatural--and most humans do. That is why a reading of the NT and the genuine changing power of a conversion in a persons life (other people's testimony) is compelling to many people every day  (there are millions of adult conversions every year). 
2. Whether or not you are aware of the formal natural theology arguments, most people can understand deep down that the universe calls out for an explanation. Conscienceless calls out for an explanation. Morality calls out for an explanation. You have to develop alternate explanations to support atheism--I don't think they are intuitive.  
3. Regarding what God could have done a better job convincing, a few points:
  a. It is not clear that ongoing flashing, crowd-convincing miracles would not be coercive to free will. I believe that minor miracles happen every day and many Christians are convinced of the same. 
  b. God is not concerned if you believe he exists. He is only interested in having a relationship with you. If your heart is searching, there is more than enough evidence that he exists.

1. Wired, maybe. But then quite a few grow up mentally and recognize fantasy for what it is, fantasy. Millions of conversions, maybe. Is that because a fantasy savior/protector/golden ticket holder allows then to deal with life/death easier, probably. Fantasy escapism can be very powerful for some people. How many adults per year raised christian reject christianity? Check our Pew research. Is it because society as a whole is out growing the need for a fantasy?
2. The people that require a made up explanation for every little thing are simply insecure. Most want to search for explanations, that's part of the human condition. However, when an explanation is not immediately forthcoming there is no need to make up and believe in a fantasy, unless you're insecure with "we don't know yet". 
3. I didn't ask for a miracle, I asked for god to show up. And it would not be coercive, it would allow me to make a decision on the reality vs fantasy of god. I think your "minor miracles" are yet another example of fantasy, attaching god to whatever suits the fantasy. And I think that if your version of a god is real based on it's book, then it is very concerned that I believe. Otherwise it would have not made it's first 4 commandments addressing that very issue. And my mind searches (not heart) but finds very little satisfaction in a fantasy god.

(April 12, 2017 at 8:17 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 10, 2017 at 9:24 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Evidence, but not convincing evidence, at least not for me and many others. 

If jesus was god (that whole trinity thing) and god can do anything (that whole omnipotent thing) then it should not be a problem for god to show up and put an end to the lack of convincing evidence. Evidence any anyone holding any belief would be able to say "that is god, I'm convinced". 


So SteveII, why doesn't this happen?

1. Most people do not start with "there is no God". We are wired to believe in the supernatural--and most humans do. That is why a reading of the NT and the genuine changing power of a conversion in a persons life (other people's testimony) is compelling to many people every day  (there are millions of adult conversions every year). 
2. Whether or not you are aware of the formal natural theology arguments, most people can understand deep down that the universe calls out for an explanation. Conscienceless calls out for an explanation. Morality calls out for an explanation. You have to develop alternate explanations to support atheism--I don't think they are intuitive.  
3. Regarding what God could have done a better job convincing, a few points:
  a. It is not clear that ongoing flashing, crowd-convincing miracles would not be coercive to free will. I believe that minor miracles happen every day and many Christians are convinced of the same. 
  b. God is not concerned if you believe he exists. He is only interested in having a relationship with you. If your heart is searching, there is more than enough evidence that he exists.

---

(April 11, 2017 at 10:59 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Thank you for your response, SteveII.  With all due respect, out of curiosity, suppose the people back then possessed humanity's current level of knowledge and understanding.  Do you think that the information quoted above in your post would've been as convincing to them as it was when they didn't possess that knowledge?

Also, do today's current practitioners of Christianity take humanity's current knowledge and understanding and try to make sense of it via a 2,000 year old mindset (for example, the writings in the NT)? Has the Christian mindset evolved with advancements in human knowledge and understanding? Would today's Christian practitioners be seen as foreign to the Christian practitioners around the time of Christ?  Thanks SteveII.

What current level of understanding do you think we have that would have made the people interpret things differently? Cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life. 

I don't think Christian understanding has changed in 2000 years. Do you have something specifically that might have changed (some important feature)?

---

(April 11, 2017 at 4:14 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: As I said you are unwilling to provide evidence aside from "the bible is true because god said so. God is real because the bible said so". It is pointless continuing the debate with you until you man up and provide evidence.

You are spouting an objection from your atheist quick list--but it does not apply to my answer. Try to keep up.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  You, "Try to keep up" ..... That's rich.

We have evolution that explains the process of life we don't need old mythology claiming men magically popped out of dirt. You are simply getting pissed nobody is buying your old bronze age comic book. 

When God goes on Maury Povich and proves his paternity with a DNA sample we'll consider your findings, but let me clue you in, IT IS A MYTH. That was then, this is now. 

You want us to buy an old book with scientifically absurd claims written by humans who had no clue of modern science. Ok, but please don't lecture us about who is up to date.

---

Steve, "Why wont you buy my magic man story?"

Me, "Because humans wrote those bad claims when they didn't know any better".

Can't dumb it down any further for you Steve. Someone sold you some elaborate tripe. Not our fault the writers had no damned clue at the time.

SteveII Wrote:What current level of understanding do you think we have that would have made the people interpret things differently?

Cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life.

Thanks for your question, SteveII.  Specifically, I’m referring to humanity’s latest, most up to date knowledge and understanding about the various sciences (physics, medicine, biology, chemistry etc.), social/behavioral sciences (psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc.), mathematics, philosophy, literature/story-telling, etc.  If humanity possessed this knowledge during the time of Christ, especially the people who accepted the truthfulness of the occurrences quoted above in your post via the accounts of others, then would they have been more skeptical?

Also, is it possible that people accepted the truthfulness of these claims because they needed something new and hopeful to believe in at that time?
 

SteveII Wrote:I don't think Christian understanding has changed in 2000 years. Do you have something specifically that might have changed (some important feature)?

I am simply curious about your thoughts on this matter and was asking a question.

(April 12, 2017 at 8:58 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: We're wired to infer agency, not God. It took a long time to get from animism to monotheism.

There are millions of adult deconversions every year too. Being consistent with your argument, what does that indicate?

And most of the conversions Steve is talking about are from one sect of a religion to another, for example pretty much every conversion to evangelism in Brazil comes straight from catholicism, and in the US from mainline protestantism or catholicism.

Most of the "growth" in relugious numbers these days is from counting children too young to understand and from double or even triple counting people moving from one version of religion to another (for example, the rcc counts every person ever baptised by a priest as catholic for life. Hence Rome still considers me catholic).

SteveII Wrote:With 9 out of 10 people in the world today believing in some variation of the supernatural, I don't think that the time in history (first century) has any bearing on the truthfulness of the claims. [1]Like I said, cripples do not walk on command, leprosy is not cured on command, 5000 people do not get fed from a basket, people never have walked on water, and dead people certainly never came back to life. [2]When these events happened, they had an effect. I cannot think of one advancement in any of the things you mentioned above that would change the perception of the events.

Yes, sir.  I've noticed that you have stated this twice now in your replies to me.  To humanity's collective knowledge, these things just don't happen.  The aim of my questions was to try and understand that if people were more knowledgeable back during the time of Christ (before centuries of these reinforced beliefs were passed on and conditioned into practitioners of this faith), then would they have been more inclined to point out [1].  For the people who actually claimed to have seen these events, what were the conditions surrounding their experiences: were they under a lot of stress; were they fatigued, especially from great amounts of ritualistic worship? Did the instances in [1] actually occur in reality and beyond any one person's perceptions, or did the people who claimed to have experienced them honestly think and believe that these events happened?

Now, the majority of people who have bought into the Christian faith have not personally witnessed these events, so how do they justify the events in [1].  Are beliefs that are obtained via the accounts and experiences of others actually stronger, more persuasive, and harder to modify than those obtained via direct experience and observation?

Also, if I've understood correctly, I've noticed that you take a rational approach toward establishing the existence of a god.  However, I have not seen how one would rationally establish that this god is the Christian god.  How does one rationally make this conclusion? Can this be done via logic and reason alone, or is faith also necessary to reach this conclusion? Can faith alone be used to reach this conclusion and is that actually a more sensible approach (both in establishing the existence of a deity and linking it to a particular deity)?

Thanks for you time and attention, SteveII.