(November 3, 2017 at 7:44 am)Wololo Wrote:(November 2, 2017 at 5:42 pm)speedyj1992 Wrote: The argument in response is that 1) God did show up, and revealed Himself to many people over many years. He is not obligated to us because we have forsaken Him and often continue to do so. Plus, you can't know an infinite God all at once when you're finite. That process needs to be there.
2) The difference is you're talking about people who came after the apostles. The apostles themselves didn't have to die for Jesus' name's sake, in theory, except that they clearly really believed the things they preached because they knew the man. Why would they die for something they didn't believe in?
What evidence can you provide for tour two claims, first of all that god was ever evident(ps the bible is the claim so inadmissable as evidence) and secondly that the apostles lived and dued?
Hmm, why is the Bible completely inadmissiable as evidence? But outside of the Bible, I have a different thread going on somewhere about how it's statistically impossible for life to form by itself based on the evidence of what we currently know about how it could possibly happen (as in many zeroes beyond the realm of possibility). So, if I say God is evident, it comes from there: until we have any compelling evidence for abiogenesis as a source of life or some other possibility that doesn't lead to more questions than answers, God's existence makes by far the most sense. Regarding the second, the life and death of the apostles is actually historically recorded - you won't find it in the Bible because it's not recorded in the Bible because it's extra-Biblical.
