From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[agapelove]

And You just linked me a William Lane Craig book. That guy is a dumbass, he's a creationist. He has no respect for evidence or the scientific method.

I don't think William Lane Craig is a creationist. Are you unwilling to consider evidence for the resurrection from any source other than one that doesn't believe it happened?

GIVE ME the evidence from other sources regarding the resurrection. It's quite simple, I've already explained why you cannot use the same thing as claim and evidence. It does discredit the idea a lot. Do you not understand the concept of legends? If you look at history, every prominent ruler has a mystical story tied to them, usually a prophetic dream or a miraculous occurrence at birth. Am I to believe all of that just because someone had the audacity to come up with it? Actually history is constantly being verified by looking at multiple sources and archaeological findings, both of which you have admitted the resurrection does not have.

Multiple attestation increases our confidence in a source, but only having one source is not a reason to discredit it. The Old Testament, for example, was the only source for the existence of the Hittite civilization until archaeology confirmed it more recently. If archaeology had never confirmed it, would you be justified in saying the Hittites didn't exist? That is what your theory that the bible cannot be the only source for a historical event seems to be saying. Why does this rule apply only to the bible and not other historical documents? I'm not sure how you thik archaeology would confirm the resurrection in the first place. If they found the empty tomb, for instance, how would you prove it was empty when Jesus rose from the dead?

If god created humanity and knew that they would fall, then we must have been designed that way. It seems as if you are saying that free will itself was the cause, in which case we are doomed to one of two futures: we will always fall no matter how many times we are redeemed, or we will have to have our free will taken from us in order to serve god.

What I am saying is that we were designed to make a free choice, and God honored the choice and preplanned a redeemer to compensate. In the future, everyone who has freely choosen to serve God will be transformed and no longer be capable of sin. Everyone has already made the free choice to live with God forever and they are now in a transcendent state of being where sin doesn't enter into the picture anymore.

I don't see a scenario were god can be absolved of the blame if he knew that his creation would fail, and yet did not adjust or modify the design. It brings to mind the angels of Genesis chapter 6-- spiritual creatures who were aroused by Earth women, and who managed to mate with them and produce offspring. Why design spirit creatures with working reproductive parts? Why make Earth women so desirable that even those spirit beings who spent countless years in the presence of the almighty himself would risk damnation for a bit of fornicating?

That's one thing we as humans are good at; pointing the finger at someone else. But God designed us to be able to freely choose; that we chose poorly does not mean God is to blame. It simply means we had the freedom to obey or disobey and we chose to disobey.

Your interpretation of Genesis 6 is one of a few different possibilities. Some say the Sons of God were men and not angels. We know that Angels can appear in the guise of men:

Hebrews 13:2 Do not be forgetful of hospitality, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.

Why did would betray God for something small is the great question we can ask of both the angels that fell and the men who still do so.

The biblical god makes some odd design decisions, for which he blames the creation instead of the blueprint. I think the blueprint is the problem. If the blueprint is signed "ancient humans for our imaginary friend Yahweh" it makes sense. If it's signed "Yahweh, king of the everything" then we have some real problems ahead of us.

Man is to blame since he was designed with free will to obey or disobey God. When God created everything it was "very good".

Relatively easy: though admittedly the code of Hammurabi phrases the golden rule in terms of retribution rather than reciprocity, teachings much like the golden rule pop up... pretty much everywhere. Confucius said "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself," long before Christ came along, and he was but one of many to do so. Clearly, the teachings of Jesus weren't so brilliant that mere mortals couldn't think of them on their own

Could you quote the exact text that is supposed to be an iteration of the golden rule? I would like to know exactly what you're talking about so we can examine the evidence. Also, Confucius was preceded by Moses and the Old Testament by 900 years, which is what I am claiming is the original source of the golden rule.

You aren't listening: I'm saying various aspects of the Christ story reappear in many different mythologies. Pointing to just one would be ineffective, when the point I'm trying to make is that it's a narrative made from a patchwork of themes that reoccur in every culture's storytelling traditions.

My point isn't that Jesus is a plagiarized fictional character. It's that his story is too uninspired to be taken as literally true based solely on your claim of how wonderfully unique it is.

Okay, I accept what you're saying. Could you please give some specific examples of what you're talking about, showing how the various aspects of His story is simply patchwork from other cultures? You're making that claim so I would like to see what evidence you are using.

Isn't that lying, though? When someone goes to so much trouble as to alter the fates of men so that they appear in specific places just so they can give the appearance that something is not true when in fact it is, that's a lie. God can't lie, right?

If they interpreted the results through Gods word they would not be confused, which is the point; God has given us instructions which allow us to correctly interpret the results. What scripture tells us is that God arranges things so that those who are following Him will see the truth whereas those who do not will be confounded.

And we get to the meat of the issue: in order for prayer to work, I have to presuppose the being involved exists, and will answer the prayer. Classic confirmation bias.

You aren't ever going to believe God exists unless He reveals Himself to you, and you are praying to ask God to give you that revelation. You are assuming I think that God could never give you confirmation in a way that you would unmistakably recognize as being from Him.

Listen... don't come in here spouting anything approaching a presuppositional argument, okay? Those are among the most profoundly dishonest arguments one could ever encounter. What you're doing here is rolling back to solipsism, and it's not going to work because... who cares? What is it that you're arguing here? That there's some alternate reality that we aren't seeing? We're still forced to obey the physical laws of such a reality, and so is everyone else, so who cares?

It was suggested that what I interpreted to be reality was not sufficient, so my question was, how does anyone know it is sufficient without using circular logic? Are you saying that isn't a valid question?

Not to mention, the same question could be leveled at you, just in case you think you can stump anyone with this: you're using your perception of reality too, and in fact that same perception is the only apparatus you have for reading your bible and feeling in your heart that god exists. How do you know yours is a valid perception?

I think we all have to make presuppositions. I presuppose it is valid because my Creator has given me the faculties to know and recognize Him. My presupposition is that God is a rational being who wants to communicate with His creatures.