(August 10, 2013 at 11:28 pm)Locke Wrote:(August 7, 2013 at 5:13 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I may have asked a similar request of the Christians of the board before but I don't think I phrased the request well enough to be congenial to a fair discussion.
Dear Christians of the board, what is one single argument (any) you would put forth that you think a person if he/she were fully rational should accept as a sound proof of Christianity?
"proof of Christianity" = proof that the God of the bible exists, that the Jesus of the gospels i.e. the supernatural Jesus who died and rose exists, that the holy spirit exists, that angels and demons, that sin exists, that heaven and hell exists.
It doesn't matter what sort of argument you give. It could be anything so long as you think this argument is something that you think a fully rational person would accept.
What constitutes "rational" person is also whatever you think a rational person is. Before you give your argument, please explicitly define what you think constitutes rational thinking.
You should also define what it means for something to "exist." How do you know whether something exists or not?
Lastly, this is not asking for proof the deistic "God." Only the God of Christianity.
If the Bible's validity can be proven to be externally free of contradiction (not contradicting with known historical events, geography etc.), internally free of contradiction (nothing in it that contradicts itself, which includes the writings of its over 40 authors, as well as Old Testament prophecies being foretold before they happened, and being fulfilled by Jesus), and it must be shown that it is reasonably accurate to the original writing (which is what was inspired by God) and that no point of doctrine or teaching has been changed.
If these criteria are met, then the Bible has good reason to be taken more seriously, especially if its claims are indeed true.
Does that sound rational?
Sure, except the Bible is self-contradictory, unsupported by independent sources, and the alleged fulfilled prophecies are not supported.
So it is rational to dismiss it as evidence of anything real.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
