(April 14, 2017 at 10:36 am)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?
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.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
