Theist Posters: Why do you believe your God exists?

[Harry Nevis]

You're a presup now?

Not in the the least. The correct term would be foundationalism. Rational inquiry requires a commit ment to the efficacy of resson that is not itself justified by reason.., I.e. faith. Boru was ridiculing the idea that faith has no place in reasoning when if fact relying on reason is itself based on trust.

What am I trusting when I reason?

[SteveII]

Why not? The events surrounding Jesus' life and teaching are the most attested to in ancient history (if you don't think so, name another). Why would't I believe the content of the NT? Do you have information as to why it would not contain what really happened? Why should I doubt the authors that describe Jesus performing a miracle?

No, they're not.  Nothing about Jesus comes from outside the bible.  Does repetition count?  [1]

Amazing.  So you're default position is to believe everything you read until proven otherwise? [2]

1. If one of the qualifications of being canonized (included the Bible) was an accepted period work about Jesus and his message, why do you act like your point matters?

2. No. And your reply is not an argument other than possibly an ad hominen one. 

You provided no reason why I should not believe, so I think I will continue as I was.

---

Why not? The events surrounding Jesus' life and teaching are the most attested to in ancient history (if you don't think so, name another).

When was he born? When did he die? What exactly were his last words? How long was his ministry? [1] Why didn't anyone outside the story notice? [2]

1. There are opinions on each of those. The fact that the exact dates (or words) did not survive does not take away the volume of material (as in pertinent) information. Obviously it would have been know at one point and someone thought that it was not important to record/propagate it.
2. Who should have noticed that we would expect their writings to survive until today? Who is to say it was not in the Jerusalem Post or period Jewish records prior to the destruction of the city and the dispersing of an entire people group. I can't see why it would be mentioned in Rome until it reached Rome and/or caused a political problem--which it eventually did.

[Godscreated]

Why not? The events surrounding Jesus' life and teaching are the most attested to in ancient history (if you don't think so, name another).

When was he born? When did he die?1) How long was his ministry? 2)Why didn't anyone outside the story notice?3)

1) He was born right before before Herod's death and died before the destruction of Jerusalem. Being so long ago those would we considered fair dates. Do you require more preciseness than this, most people do not, it puts the time line within a 70 year period, not bad for something that occurred 2000 years ago, right.
2) His ministry began right before John the Baptist died and ended while Pilate was still in Jerusalem. Again fairly precise for events that took place 2000 years ago, right.
3) Who said they did not notice, with the numbers of people that were recorded in some of the stories it's hard to believe that many outside the story did not notice. Just remember you and your buddies here have said the people of that time were illiterate, so why would you ask this question if you believe what you say. We know that Matthew, Luke and Paul were literate because of their professions. Peter and John were fishermen with their own businesses​ l would think they also would have need to be literate. We know Jesus was literate because He read in the temple so why shouldn't his brother James. These are few compared to the number of people mentioned in the NT and they did record the important things of Jesus life.

GC

[Harry Nevis]

When was he born? When did he die?1) How long was his ministry? 2)Why didn't anyone outside the story notice?3)

1) He was born right before before Herod's death and died before the destruction of Jerusalem. Being so long ago those would we considered fair dates. Do you require more preciseness than this, most people do not, it puts the time line within a 70 year period, not bad for something that occurred 2000 years ago, right.
2) His ministry began right before John the Baptist died and ended while Pilate was still in Jerusalem. Again fairly precise for events that took place 2000 years ago, right.
3) Who said they did not notice, with the numbers of people that were recorded in some of the stories it's hard to believe that many outside the story did not notice. Just remember you and your buddies here have said the people of that time were illiterate, so why would you ask this question if you believe what you say. We know that Matthew, Luke and Paul were literate because of their professions. Peter and John were fishermen with their own businesses l would think they also would have need to be literate. We know Jesus was literate because He read in the temple so why shouldn't his brother James. These are few compared to the number of people mentioned in the NT and they did record the important things of Jesus life.

GC

I take it that "we know" is christer code for "I believe".

[Mister Agenda]

But the negation is another proposition.

1. Proposition - gods exists
2. Proposition - gods do not exist

I do not have to take the contrapositive position when responding to the first.

There is only one proposition on the table. What is your stance with respect to P1, "God exists"? Either P1 is true or P1 is not true. As per the law of the excluded middle you have only two choices.

You keep mentioning that law like you understand it but you keep misusing it. It is true that gods either exist or do not. It is not true that I have to take the position that gods do not exist if I don't take the position that gods do exist. It is true that you are in possession of all your limbs and extremities or you are not, that does not mean I have to take the position that you do not if I don't take the position that you do. I don't know which is true so I don't have to take either position, and furthermore, I shouldn't take either position. I may set odds based on something like demographics to say it's 98% likely that you aren't missing any limbs or digits, but to assert it as true would be gambling, not logic.

---

Not in the the least. The correct term would be foundationalism. Rational inquiry requires a commit ment to the efficacy of resson that is not itself justified by reason.., I.e. faith. Boru was ridiculing the idea that faith has no place in reasoning when if fact relying on reason is itself based on trust.

I'm not big into commitment. Logic earned my trust by being useful. Using faith and trust interchangeably in a thread about why people believe God exists smacks of equivocation.

[KUSA]

We know Jesus was literate because He read in the temple

Perhaps he could read but he couldn't write.

[vorlon13]

If he could write he would have been making big money as a scribe and not doing carpentry work.

[John V]

I decided to make a thread on theists explaining why they accept the existence of their God. I know there are few theists on here as compared to atheists/agnostics but I am interested to see what the major ways of the theists on here are. 

Would you ever change your mind God's existence and become an atheist?

I believe in a creator god because my daily experience screams that there must be one.

I believe in Christianity in particular because I find the testimony of the NT credible; the biblical view of the human condition is accurate; and personally it's done a lot of good for me. That's off the top of my head.

I doubt I could ever be an atheist as it just leaves too much unexplained. You guys can fool yourselves all you want with multiverses and abiogenesis speculations, but it's all bullshit.

Regarding Christianity, if we found documents showing that the NT accounts started with a normal human Jesus and the fantastic was added over time, that would make me question at the least.

[Nonpareil]

You guys can fool yourselves all you want with multiverses and abiogenesis speculations, but it's all bullshit.

Belief in multiverse theory is hardly required to be an atheist.

And the theory of abiogenesis is not speculation.

[vorlon13]

I decided to make a thread on theists explaining why they accept the existence of their God. I know there are few theists on here as compared to atheists/agnostics but I am interested to see what the major ways of the theists on here are. 

Would you ever change your mind God's existence and become an atheist?

I believe in a creator god because my daily experience screams that there must be one.

I believe in Christianity in particular because I find the testimony of the NT credible; the biblical view of the human condition is accurate; and personally it's done a lot of good for me. That's off the top of my head.

I doubt I could ever be an atheist as it just leaves too much unexplained. You guys can fool yourselves all you want with multiverses and abiogenesis speculations, but it's all bullshit.

Regarding Christianity, if we found documents showing that the NT accounts started with a normal human Jesus and the fantastic was added over time, that would make me question at the least.

(bolding mine)

particularly when those repeated pesky prohibitions on divorce/subsequent marriage(s) are conveniently ignored