There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God

[revivin]

You actually concede it is first class evidence because you can't improve on it.

Not at all. It would be far better in terms of 'evidence' if it had been corroborated by independent sources, casual witnesses, passersby, Roman soldiers, etc, who had no axe to grind or any connection to the alleged eyewitnesses as reported in the NT, but were astonished enough by the events to make a written report. That would count as better evidence, but still problematic.

Anyone who saw Jesus resurrected who had history with Him wrote about Him. The 27 books of the NT are corroborated independent sources. Jesus appeared after His death to the 12 Apostles, to 500 though some did not believe it (reasonably because they had not seen Jesus before), 'other Apostles', Paul, and James brother of Jesus. These are the writers of the NT or they had transcribers a common practice for those who could not write themselves.

Would not the best testimonies be those who spent 3 years with Jesus who really knew Him rather than some passerby or Roman soldier whom it is unclear whether they had seen Jesus before He died? You can establish the Apostles spent 3 years with Jesus, Paul's conversion, James' conversion. But it would be of little value to have axe grinding or non-axe grinding people whom we are unclear ever would have seen Jesus before then. Matthew had no axe to grind, neither did any of the Apostles selected. They came freshly anew. Did James and Jude have an axe to grind? It would seem even better to have axe-grinders whom it would seem not in a million years would give their lives to Christ like Paul who was killing Christians and had a cushy job as a Pharisee.

There was nothing to be gained by being Christian only established martyrdom, pain, suffering and ridicule. We should point out too that this collection of data we have gone over together is better than for anyone else in antiquity by far. So you are looking for some crumbs compared to the 3 years spent with the Apostles who really knew Jesus to identify Him resurrected.

 

[DBT]

Not at all. It would be far better in terms of 'evidence' if it had been corroborated by independent sources, casual witnesses, passersby, Roman soldiers, etc, who had no axe to grind or any connection to the alleged eyewitnesses as reported in the NT, but were astonished enough by the events to make a written report. That would count as better evidence, but still problematic.

Anyone who saw Jesus resurrected who had history with Him wrote about Him. The 27 books of the NT are corroborated independent sources. Jesus appeared after His death to the 12 Apostles, to 500 though some did not believe it said (reasonably because they had not seen Jesus before), 'other Apostles', Paul, and James brother of Jesus. These are the writers of the NT. Would not the best testimonies be those who spent 3 years with Jesus who really knew Him rather than some passerby or Roman soldier whom it is unclear whether they had seen Jesus before He died? You can establish the Apostles spent 3 years with Jesus, Paul's conversion, James' conversion. But it would be of little value to have axe grinding or non-axe grinding people whom we are unclear ever would have seen Jesus before then. Matthew had no axe to grind, neither did any of the Apostles selected. Did James and Jude have an axe to grind? It would seem even better to have axe-grinders whom it would seem not in a million years would give their lives to Christ like Paul who was killing Christians and had a cushy job as a Pharisee. There was nothing to be gained by being Christian only established martyrdom, pain, suffering and ridicule. We should point out too that this collection of data we have gone over together is better than for anyone else in antiquity by far. So you are looking for some crumbs compared to the 3 years spent with the Apostles who really knew Jesus to identify Him resurrected.

That's odd, I was under the impression that the only mention of Jesus of Nazareth, the miracles, etc, can only to be found in the books of NT. Which are not composed of independent accounts written by anyone outside of the interests of the faith, but written by believers, those within the fold of the faith. That the writers, some who borrow from older sources, wrote about 'eye witnesses' to miracles is not the same as a report made by an unrelated and independent source.

 

[dystopian]

Wait, how many times has he said he was leaving now? Sounds like a plea for help to me.

 

[revivin]

Anyone who saw Jesus resurrected who had history with Him wrote about Him. The 27 books of the NT are corroborated independent sources. Jesus appeared after His death to the 12 Apostles, to 500 though some did not believe it said (reasonably because they had not seen Jesus before), 'other Apostles', Paul, and James brother of Jesus. These are the writers of the NT. Would not the best testimonies be those who spent 3 years with Jesus who really knew Him rather than some passerby or Roman soldier whom it is unclear whether they had seen Jesus before He died? You can establish the Apostles spent 3 years with Jesus, Paul's conversion, James' conversion. But it would be of little value to have axe grinding or non-axe grinding people whom we are unclear ever would have seen Jesus before then. Matthew had no axe to grind, neither did any of the Apostles selected. Did James and Jude have an axe to grind? It would seem even better to have axe-grinders whom it would seem not in a million years would give their lives to Christ like Paul who was killing Christians and had a cushy job as a Pharisee. There was nothing to be gained by being Christian only established martyrdom, pain, suffering and ridicule. We should point out too that this collection of data we have gone over together is better than for anyone else in antiquity by far. So you are looking for some crumbs compared to the 3 years spent with the Apostles who really knew Jesus to identify Him resurrected.

That's odd, I was under the impression that the only mention of Jesus of Nazareth, the miracles, etc, can only to be found in the books of NT. Which are not composed of independent accounts written by anyone outside of the interests of the faith, but written by believers, those within the fold of the faith. That the writers, some who borrow from older sources, wrote about 'eye witnesses' to miracles is not the same as a report made by an unrelated and independent source.

They are independent accounts that's why they differ so much! Matthew never wrote Mark, Luke or John. Mark never wrote Matthew, Luke or John. Luke never wrote Matthew, Mark or John. And John never wrote Matthew, Mark or Luke. Why are you having independent issues with that? We don't have writings for anyone in antiquity during the lifetime of an individual like we have for the NT events say Paul's, Luke's and Mark's travels. That is a substantial fact. The reason for that of course is during the time of the events nobody thinks to record or it is so long ago it doesn't get preserved. Either way, we still have more sources for Jesus than we have for anyone in antiquity say within 150 years of their deaths.

Luke was a doctor and gave very extensive records of what happened. You would think he would make mention of Paul's death but never did indicating that Acts was completed before 65 AD perhaps around 50 AD. But Acts was part two of his former work of Luke around 40 AD. And as you said he took from Mark even earlier around 35 AD just 2 years after the cross. Peter an Mark were good friends so Peter wrote his epistles around then too. All of it is so well recorded, you've yet to find a better set of corroborating points.

With the early martyrdom of James the Greater and Stephen, and Jesus telling the disciples they would be put to death for their eyewitness testimony of having seen Him resurrected, precedence was clearly set in their own hearts, they knew full well what was going to happen to them if they continued to preach the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ being God and died on the cross for the sins of the world, was resurrected the third day, seen the fortieth day ascending to the clouds and gave the Holy Spirit to indwell believers at Pentecost.

I am not sure if I was one of the Apostles I would be strong enough to tell a little lie that I hadn't seen Jesus resurrected to save my life from martyrdom or at the very least limit my practice of delivering the gospel so I always knew that I would not be in harms way by speaking too much about it. Though sometimes it seems like the latter I am willing to endure hardship in spreading the gospel.

 

[revivin]

Wait, how many times has he said he was leaving now? Sounds like a plea for help to me.

How could you help me? All you have done is strengthen my faith because you can't overturn the evidence that something can't come from nothing and infinite regress is impossible, and you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

At least try to understand that these 3 facts secure my faith. If you want to try undermine my faith you would solve these 3 things, otherwise, you undermine atheism. Evidence is all empowering.

 

[OLDMAN]

I believe in Jesus. But what does that mean? I can read his lessons. I can read accounts of him climbing a mountain alone and talking to God. But if he climbed alone then clearly what happened up their is subject to question. Go back and read again. You can clearly see what he teaches vs. the stories that surround his life are woven together to create a God.

Why would someone create a God? The Romans were always turning men into Gods, the Jews were always looking for a Messiah. The two cultures came together to give us a God that is a Messiah. Does this surprise you?

If I find seashells buried on a mountain, the facts may lead me to conclude the water was a lot higher once. How could this be? A flood? Not knowing all the facts could lead to this creation of a flood story. Today we know it was the mountains that have risen over time. We do not blame our ancestors for their beliefs, but we do not share them. Because evidence doesn't care if you believe it or not, it is simply pointing towards the truth.

 

[Angry Floof]

Wait, how many times has he said he was leaving now? Sounds like a plea for help to me.

How could you help me? All you have done is strengthen my faith because you can't overturn the evidence that something can't come from nothing and infinite regress is impossible, and you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

At least try to understand that these 3 facts secure my faith. If you want to try undermine my faith you would solve these 3 things, otherwise, you undermine atheism. Evidence is all empowering.

You mean strengthen your belief that you are God? In Christian doctrine, it's God who sees what's in my heart, not people. It's supposed to be God who judges, not other people. Yet here you are like so many other Christians who visit us, doing the job of judging. What a weak God that needs people like you do to his judging for him.

Do you play God in this way because you know deep down that there is no God to judge?

How can you have faith in a God who can't do his own judging? If he can do his own judging, then clearly you have no faith in that.

 

[Angry Floof]

Wait, how many times has he said he was leaving now? Sounds like a plea for help to me.

Revivin is not ready to give up that delicious feeling of self righteousness that comes with playing God and judging us.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Wait, how many times has he said he was leaving now? Sounds like a plea for help to me.

How could you help me? All you have done is strengthen my faith because you can't overturn the evidence that something can't come from nothing

Ha. You never offered evidence for this, along with evidence that anyone here has said that crimes are healthy.

You're just making shit up and patting yourself on the back.

and infinite regress is impossible,

Still haven't proven this wrong. JUst asserted, then repeated yourself.

and you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

We have, but you don't like them, so you pretend no one's come up with one.
Fantasy to pleasure yourself.

You're just masturbating, Troy..

At least try to understand that these 3 facts secure my faith. If you want to try undermine my faith you would solve these 3 things, otherwise, you undermine atheism. Evidence is all empowering.

We don't need to undermine your faith to preserve atheism. Your faith is built upon some shaky things, Troy. None of it compelling, none of it convincing, none of it supported with any evidence.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I was about to say wow, go away for a weekend and miss a huge thread! Skimming said thread has allowed me to realize there's nothing new here, and by nothing new, I mean more stale than the communion wafers they serve in mass. So, at least I feel better now.

 

[dystopian]

How could you help me?

People who put out pleas for help usually don't know how people would actually help them. When you constantly tell us you're leaving, constantly telling us how this is your last post and fuck you all; that sounds exactly like a teen who cuts themselves and threatens to commit suicide without ever doing so. They were never really going to commit suicide, it's just a plea for help that they don't themselves even recognize. Just like your behavior looks like a massive plea for help. Deep down you know that your claims have been refuted; you know that your beliefs don't make logical sense, and the rational part of your mind can't reconcile this with your faith; hence the problem.

Cognitive dissonance at work: you keep bombastically proclaiming that you're done with us and that your beliefs are true and proven, but because part of you knows that isn't true, you just keep coming back.

All you have done is strengthen my faith because you can't overturn the evidence that something can't come from nothing and infinite regress is impossible,

I'm not going to explain to you for the FIFTH time why your arguments against infinite regress have been refuted, just like I'm not going to explain to you for the upteenth time why there are plenty of naturalistic explanations for those eyewitness testimonies. You have all the information you need; you just need to stop putting your fingers in your ears and overcome that dissonance.

If you want to try undermine my faith you would solve these 3 things,

Hey, *YOU* are the one who came to a board full of atheists to preach. We didn't come to your doorstep to 'undermine' your faith; you came to ours in order to undermine our reason.

otherwise, you undermine atheism.

Uh, no. Nobody's atheism is being undermined here. Trust me.

Evidence is all empowering.

I'd like to think so, but unfortunately you seem to ignore all the evidence presented to you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Probably the closest opportunity you will get to receiving Christ is if you experience massive tragedy, perhaps lost loved ones, terrible illness, and number of other things that all weigh on you at once that get you to question life and reality, ...Potentially maybe 1 in 300 of you will realize all things sum up in Christ

When men are gravely wounded on the battlefield, torn apart and rather close to death,many of them cry out to their god. Not always to the god they professed to worship when they had their dogtags stamped, but always to the god of their childhood.
At the same time, many men in a similar situation will call out to their mommy instead of their god. It's a fear response, a desperate plea.

But in 300 out of 300 cases of battlefield distress, God has never shown up to heal the sucking chest wound. God has never reattached a severed or vaporized limb. By an amazing coincidence, in 300 of 300 cases of battlefield distress, mommy has never traveled halfway around the world, descended to the foxhole and kissed the amputation and made it better. Never once tucked the wounded into bed with his teddy and sung him a lullaby to make the shelling go away.

Every time the wounded calls for his mother, it just seems to be a meaningless, useless cry for something impossible to happen. it's not the result of a rational examination of his condition or whether or not his mother has the power to fly, heal and reattach limbs. It's just fear.
Now, on the other hand, every time the wounded calls for God, Troy would have us believe that the pain and the fear and the loss of a limb have finally pushed our cogitation into gear, and we realize that there IS a god, who could save us and prevent us from dying in the mud, or from being an amputee in a post-war nation where vets end up homeless. He COULD. He just doesn't. Ever. For any soldier. No matter how piercing the scream or how loyal the faith was or how deep the fear goes.

Nope. Troy's god is just happy to see us come to his senses in that last moment, at the depths of despair, and then lets us lay there, bleeding into the muck, as our legs become tasty meat snacks for jackals or wolves or other carrion eaters waiting in the wings.

Happy is he who has that sort of a fuckwit deity smiling down upon him as he breathes his last breath....

 

[Brian63]

As annoying as some Christian evangelists can be, there is also a part of me that over time has grown to actually feel sorry for these kinds of people. When the reality is that we all have only 1 life to live, it is saddening to realize that some people delude themselves for that 1 life, and they never get to experience the reality around them as it truly is, and learn to enjoy that. Whatever persona the apologists put on, we should remember that there really is another part to their personality, maybe several of them. They may be really hurting inside (somewhat like they are conditioned to believe all non-Christians are...it is just actually true to some degree the other way as well). As easy as it is to feel antagonism for such people, I do think we should aim more for feeling compassion and sympathy for them. Hard to do, but seems the right thing to do.

Brian

 

[dystopian]

As annoying as some Christian evangelists can be, there is also a part of me that over time has grown to actually feel sorry for these kinds of people. When the reality is that we all have only 1 life to live, it is saddening to realize that some people delude themselves for that 1 life, and they never get to experience the reality around them as it truly is, and learn to enjoy that. Whatever persona the apologists put on, we should remember that there really is another part to their personality, maybe several of them. They may be really hurting inside (somewhat like they are conditioned to believe all non-Christians are...it is just actually true to some degree the other way as well). As easy as it is to feel antagonism for such people, I do think we should aim more for feeling compassion and sympathy for them. Hard to do, but seems the right thing to do.

Brian

Me, I actually kind of envy them. Reality kind of sucks; I wish I could just flip a switch and believe with absolute certainty that I was special and that when I die I get to go to super-awesome fun-land. Unfortunately, I seem to lack the ability to delude myself to that extent.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wish I could just flip a switch and believe with absolute certainty that I was special and that when I die I get to go to super-awesome fun-land. Unfortunately, I seem to lack the ability to delude myself to that extent.

That's probably fortunate, though.
Because you'd have to deal with the fact that someone's NOT going to uperawesome funlandia. And you'd have to convince yourself they deserve to go to super depressing tortureplace. Look at how Happy Troy gets to realize that all the people who reject his 'perfect' proof are going to regret that for eternity.

I don't want that sort of happiness.

 

[dystopian]

I wish I could just flip a switch and believe with absolute certainty that I was special and that when I die I get to go to super-awesome fun-land. Unfortunately, I seem to lack the ability to delude myself to that extent.

That's probably fortunate, though.
Because you'd have to deal with the fact that someone's NOT going to uperawesome funlandia. And you'd have to convince yourself they deserve to go to super depressing tortureplace. Look at how Happy Troy gets to realize that all the people who reject his 'perfect' proof are going to regret that for eternity.

I don't want that sort of happiness.

Well, obviously if I could just choose to flip the skepticism switch and believe; I'd choose to believe a less messed up story. Maybe something involving reincarnation as opposed to something involving eternal torment.

 

[revivin]

the wounded calls for God

One of the ways a person can come to Christ is coming to the brink of their existence. For example, watch the movie that came out this year called "God's not Dead" and you will see exactly what I mean by the end of the show. Great movie! This is a must watch movie for atheists!

God will put a person in dire straights because that is the only potential possibility they would ever consider receiving His mercy. So the person calls for God if genuine, and God knows your heart even every hair on your head so that person would accept Jesus as God and Savior.

Praise to God opens up that communication with God in the spirit of man for fellowship and communion in a personal relationship with Jesus. Prayer is how we communication with God and receive His inner registrations in our intuitive spirit and conscience of our spirit. Words can be put to this that manifest or originate in the spirit's intuition.

As for miracles, scores of books in addition to the miracles in the Bible have occurred. People are miraculously cured inexplicably. I myself am a miracle case and I don't know how to explain my recovery and no doctor has been able to either. It's a miracle! I should be dead right now.

There are even near death experiences where a person has been flatlined for an hour and during that time saw things that he could not have known before. When he reports it after waking up, the multiple corroboration of the doctors stand in awe. He might say something like on the top of the medical building is a tennis ball and gives its location. These best case testimonies have been well documented.

In fact, doctors are the highest contingent of people who profess miracles, because they have so much knowledge medically speaking yet strange things happen in the healing process they just cannot explain.

 

[jonJ]

When I talk to an atheist it is like talking to someone who is a total degenerate in his thoughts and actions.

And yet you keep coming back to do it some more... What does that tell us about you?

- - - Updated - - -

One of the ways a person can come to Christ is coming to the brink of their existence. For example, watch the movie that came out this year called "God's not Dead" and you will see exactly what I mean by the end of the show. Great movie! This is a must watch movie for atheists!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/gods_not_dead/

Seventeen per cent on Rotten Tomatoes. Even the atheists aren't watching this turkey. But if you read the reviews you might find yourself with a sense of deja vu. The AV Club review has a lovely opening paragraph:

Even by the rather lax standards of the Christian film industry, God’s Not Dead is a disaster. It’s an uninspired amble past a variety of Christian-email-forward boogeymen that feels far too long at just 113 minutes. Resembling a megachurch more than a movie, it’s been designed not to convey any particular message, but to reinforce the stereotypes its chosen audience already holds. It weirdly fetishizes persecution, and many of its story decisions—like randomly tossing in Duck Dynasty stars Willie and Korie Robertson or concluding on an endless concert from popular Christian rock group Newsboys—seem designed to simply get butts in seats. To say God’s Not Dead preaches to the choir would be an understatement. It’s the pastor, staring in a mirror, preaching to himself.

 

[Shadowy Man]

In fact, doctors are the highest contingent of people who profess miracles, because they have so much knowledge medically speaking yet strange things happen in the healing process they just cannot explain.

This only reaffirms my belief that most physicians do not think scientifically. Being unexplained is not the same as being miraculous.

 

[Angry Floof]

And yet you keep coming back to do it some more... What does that tell us about you?

He's an addict. Condemning non-believers can be a heady aphrodisiac. He's probably typing one-handed as he makes his righteous judgments.