(April 14, 2017 at 9:01 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:{A} I believe the events in the Gospel happened pretty much as described.  I have never heard a coherent theory that would explain the widespread belief that we have evidence for following the death and resurrection of Jesus. 
{B} If I believe in God, why isn't the NT compelling? It makes sense, it answers many questions, it provides details on living a fulfilling life, and provides a way to have a relationship with God. Also do not underestimate the role of personal experience (changed lives, attitudes, etc.) of the person and of other Christians that adds to the evidence.
{C} What is the difference between all the other religions and Christianity? The NT. I think it delivers the most complete systematic theology of any religion by far.

Thank you for your response, SteveII.  If you're interested, I'm still unsure about how one can prove the truth of your religion via a purely rational approach.  Can the truth of your religion be proven outside of the NT?  For example, when proving a math theorem, it would be incorrect to prove its truth via the claim/conclusion of the theorem itself: in order to prove it, outside definitions (exact and precise) and the results of other theorems, lemmas, corollaries, etc., must be logically connected in order to clearly establish the truth of each premise , so that the conclusion is reached via a logical flow of evidence and facts.  Hence, like a math proof, could the truth of your religion be proven in a similar fashion?

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling (or a combination of any of these or something else I haven't thought of). 

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe. As we have been discussing, the NT events certainly compelled the witnesses of those events to believe (miracles and such) and continue to be compelling to those that accept the evidence for them as true. Another category of rational reasons are the Natural Theology Arguments. 

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments. 

IMPORTANT: it is the cumulative case for Christianity that is rational. Atheists like to pick a component and claim--that's not convincing enough...so therefore your belief is irrational. That is simplistic and disingenuous.

---

(April 14, 2017 at 11:41 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 10:36 am)SteveII Wrote: Analyzing historical events is nothing like a math proof. You look at all the evidence and decide if the you think the events happened as portrayed. I have never heard a feasible alternate explanation as to why we have (in chronological order): 1) the existence of many churches throughout the empire prior to 50AD, 2) the letters of Paul writing to these churches (and his journeys to visit them)--who already believed the core of Christianity, and 3) the gospels and Acts. 

So, since I have no problem believing in the supernatural, have evidence that the events of the NT happened, and have no compelling counter-evidence or feasible scenario to explain the evidence we do have, I am rationally justified in believing that Christianity and its claims are true.

Confirmation bias.  Nothing else can be feasible once you made up your mind.

You're wrong. The answer was in response to why I thought my religion was true. I could have arrived at any number of religions. So, no confirmation bias.

(April 14, 2017 at 12:10 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 9:01 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Thank you for your response, SteveII.  If you're interested, I'm still unsure about how one can prove the truth of your religion via a purely rational approach.  Can the truth of your religion be proven outside of the NT?  For example, when proving a math theorem, it would be incorrect to prove its truth via the claim/conclusion of the theorem itself: in order to prove it, outside definitions (exact and precise) and the results of other theorems, lemmas, corollaries, etc., must be logically connected in order to clearly establish the truth of each premise , so that the conclusion is reached via a logical flow of evidence and facts.  Hence, like a math proof, could the truth of your religion be proven in a similar fashion?

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling (or a combination of any of these or something else I haven't thought of). 

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe. As we have been discussing, the NT events certainly compelled the witnesses of those events to believe (miracles and such) and continue to be compelling to those that accept the evidence for them as true. Another category of rational reasons are the Natural Theology Arguments. 

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments. 

IMPORTANT: it is the cumulative case for Christianity that is rational. Atheists like to pick a component and claim--that's not convincing enough...so therefore your belief is irrational. That is simplistic and disingenuous.

---

(April 14, 2017 at 11:41 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Confirmation bias.  Nothing else can be feasible once you made up your mind.

You're wrong. The answer was in response to why I thought my religion was true. I could have arrived at any number of religions. So, no confirmation bias.

HOLY GIBBERISH MENTAL ACROBATICS BATMAN!

Musim=I am not bias.
Jew=I am not bias.
Hindu= I am not bias.
Budhist= I am not bias.
Christian=I am not bias.

Funny how everyone claims that and points to everyone else and calls them bias.

YES IT IS CONFIRMATION BIAS! 

I know you really truly want to believe you are not being bias, but you are unwilling to take the puppet master fictional hand out of your back and you want to pretend being a ventriloquist doll is neutral. Nope sorry, you are as bias as anyone with any other favorite club.

You like the story you fell for and you are bias. Not our baggage you fell for it.

(April 14, 2017 at 12:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: [edit]

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling (or a combination of any of these or something else I haven't thought of). 

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe. As we have been discussing, the NT events certainly compelled the witnesses of those events to believe (miracles and such) and continue to be compelling to those that accept the evidence for them as true. Another category of rational reasons are the Natural Theology Arguments. 

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments. 

IMPORTANT: it is the cumulative case for Christianity that is rational. Atheists like to pick a component and claim--that's not convincing enough...so therefore your belief is irrational. That is simplistic and disingenuous.

[edit]

I think muslims here would argue that the Koran provides those same arguments/conclusions, and maybe even better than the NT. Care to comment on why yours is the better belief?

BTW, I find none of those components/conclusions/cumulative case convincing. The fantasy provides an explanation that you seen to need, nothing more.

(April 14, 2017 at 12:31 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 12:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: [edit]

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling (or a combination of any of these or something else I haven't thought of). 

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe. As we have been discussing, the NT events certainly compelled the witnesses of those events to believe (miracles and such) and continue to be compelling to those that accept the evidence for them as true. Another category of rational reasons are the Natural Theology Arguments. 

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments. 

IMPORTANT: it is the cumulative case for Christianity that is rational. Atheists like to pick a component and claim--that's not convincing enough...so therefore your belief is irrational. That is simplistic and disingenuous.

[edit]

I think muslims here would argue that the Koran provides those same arguments/conclusions, and maybe even better than the NT. Care to comment on why yours is the better belief?

BTW, I find none of those components/conclusions/cumulative case convincing. The fantasy provides an explanation that you seen to need, nothing more.

Christians and Muslims are both wrong, Jews are far older, they got it right. Oh wait, shit, Canaanites polytheism is much older..... FUCK must be Buddhism, that is older...... SHIT..... Hindus they are really really old. Yep, Hindus that's the ticket, they got it right. No no no, we all need to worship the cave paintings in European caves, 20,000 years old.

Most humans think the club their parents passed down to them is the correct club to belong to.

(April 14, 2017 at 12:31 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 12:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: [edit]

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling (or a combination of any of these or something else I haven't thought of). 

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe. As we have been discussing, the NT events certainly compelled the witnesses of those events to believe (miracles and such) and continue to be compelling to those that accept the evidence for them as true. Another category of rational reasons are the Natural Theology Arguments. 

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments. 

IMPORTANT: it is the cumulative case for Christianity that is rational. Atheists like to pick a component and claim--that's not convincing enough...so therefore your belief is irrational. That is simplistic and disingenuous.

[edit]

I think muslims here would argue that the Koran provides those same arguments/conclusions, and maybe even better than the NT. Care to comment on why yours is the better belief?

BTW, I find none of those components/conclusions/cumulative case convincing. The fantasy provides an explanation that you seen to need, nothing more.

The Natural Theology arguments only infer God (non-specific). You would have to compare the NT with the Koran to see which one is more compelling, evidenced, and internally consistent. I think Christianity meet that criteria better by far. 

BTW, using the word 'fantasy' over and over in your posts is not a way to have a civil discourse.

(April 14, 2017 at 12:53 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 12:31 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I think muslims here would argue that the Koran provides those same arguments/conclusions, and maybe even better than the NT. Care to comment on why yours is the better belief?

BTW, I find none of those components/conclusions/cumulative case convincing. The fantasy provides an explanation that you seen to need, nothing more.

The Natural Theology arguments only infer God (non-specific). You would have to compare the NT with the Koran to see which one is more compelling, evidenced, and internally consistent. I think Christianity meet that criteria better by far. 

BTW, using the word 'fantasy' over and over in your posts is not a way to have a civil discourse.

bold mine

Would you prefer Delusion? Hokum? Malarkey? I'm trying to be nice/tolerant. That's the most civil word I can think of to describe your belief in one word. 

I know you won't be able to do this but, imagine your self explaining your belief to a society that had never conceived of a god or had the concept of a completely different god. What do you think they would say?

Do you have a feasible alternative explanation (as in, alternative to Allah is really real™)for the existence of their places of worship, the existence of historical belief, and the existence of their religious texts?

(April 14, 2017 at 1:06 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 12:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: The Natural Theology arguments only infer God (non-specific). You would have to compare the NT with the Koran to see which one is more compelling, evidenced, and internally consistent. I think Christianity meet that criteria better by far. 

BTW, using the word 'fantasy' over and over in your posts is not a way to have a civil discourse.

bold mine

Would you prefer Delusion? Hokum? Malarkey? I'm trying to be nice/tolerant. That's the most civil word I can think of to describe your belief in one word. 

I know you won't be able to do this but, imagine your self explaining your belief to a society that had never conceived of a god or had the concept of a completely different god. What do you think they would say?

I can't believe that you are not able to construct a sentence that does not have an intentional derogatory term in it. Civil discourse has as one of its principal concepts that you cast your opponent's position is the most charitable light possible--even if you do not agree with it.

Sometimes the most charitable light is still a dingy yellow.

(April 14, 2017 at 11:32 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Does it make more sense to have faith in the supernatural rather than trying to rationally understand something that is beyond reason? With all due respect, if one tries to understand the  supernatural via reason, then is "supernatural"  just a way of describing  a lack of understanding about how reality works?

How reality works may not be (and probably isn't ) based on the current materialist paradigm. The dividing line between supernatural and natural is not fixed. It changes based on one's understanding of what is considered an allowable explanation.