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

[rousseau]

Well all that sucks for you, I'm sorry that you have to live the only life you're going to lead in complete delusion.

I'm going to go get a pizza.

 

[Keith&Co.]

written in a gospel of unknown authorship

Try the Minimal Facts Approach which almost all scholars who do peer review journal or accredited work on the resurrection do agree on some things. One of those things they are certain of is that Paul wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2 and was genuine.

Which does What, exactly, for the gospel accounts of the resurrection?

He recounts the gospel, resurrection, some eyewitness accounts

If he recounts some eyewitness accounts, is that quite the same as us having access to verified eyewitness accounts?

and said he spent 15 days with Peter, and also time with John the disciple whom Jesus loved most and the brother of Jesus who also saw Jesus resurrected and converted to become the Elder of the church of Jerusalem.

So, still not an eyewitness account.

Paul said they Apostles added nothing unto him sharing the same message.

And he would know their accounts were accurate because.....?

Paul was converted 2 years after the cross and spent time with these Apostles at most 3 years after his conversion. So it goes all the way back to the cross that the Apostles truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings, salvation was only through Jesus, only God can resurrect Himself, and the churches were set up on their eyewitness testimony of the resurrected Jesus. What better proof could you ask for? I can think of none.

How about an eyewitness account?
Really.
I mean, if you're in court for a traffic accident, and the cop didn't see the accident, but he saw some people who told him you were driving recklessly, and he swears to the judge that that's what they told him, would you want this testimony considered perfectly accurate or maybe just marginal?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheists don't care for evidence. Atheists are not big on that thing called evidence, and not fond of practitioners of evidence in the Courts of Justice.

Funny.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would not want anyone to have to go to eternal perdition unless absolutely necessary. It is absolutely necessary atheist burn in the Lake of Fire for all eternity.

Wow.

That's pretty fucking evil, you know?

I mean, as an atheist, i still have a moral code that tells me that NO amount of sin on this planet is worth an eternity of suffering. It far outstrips punishment, it outstrips even revenge and becomes a petty act of unnecessary cruelty.
I personally wouldn't throw Hitler into perdition for eternity.
I would have to figure that at some point, even he would have to pause and say, hey, maybe i did something wrong. And grant him the option of salvation.

This Eternal Torment model is, i believe, a great discriminator in figuring out who is and isn't just fucking psychotic. You talk a good game about loving us, but you're okay with a supreme being who uses torture to get what he wants.

That's pretty fucking evil. I mean, you'd call it evil if any earthly ruler said 'Vote for me or i'll put you in my dungeon for 80 years, where you'll be (fill in the blank torture) every day.' But you've been brainwashed to call it good when God does it.


No thanks. Don't want to see the demo on this.

 

[dystopian]

I mean, as an atheist, i still have a moral code that tells me that NO amount of sin on this planet is worth an eternity of suffering.

More than that, as an atheist you have a moral code that you arrived at by actually *thinking* about what is and is not moral as opposed to just getting the answers from a book. As an atheist, you know that you can't shift the blame or responsibility on anyone but yourself; you can't rely on a 'god' to tell you right from wrong, it's all up to you. That in itself makes the morality of an atheist far superior to that of a theist, because at least you *own* your moral victories and failures.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Revivin, you must realize that your case for Christ is nebulous and subjective rather than the solid lock on logic that you set it up to be. Faith is a terrible way to seek reality. If it were a good way, we wouldn't have extra-fervent Muslims, Mormons, what have you, who could all come here and espouse their beliefs in just the pitch of fervor you present (and with the same faux appeal to revelation and the historicity of their founding documents.) For that matter, we wouldn't have hundreds (thousands?) of splinter groups of Christianity who would dispute your take on any of hundreds of scriptural, doctrinal, sacramental issues.
You do know that the 4 Easter morning narratives in the gospels do not harmonize? That the sightings do not harmonize? (Just as, in the same problematic way for you believers, the Bible gives 2 contradictory genealogies for Jesus, two different birth years, which are a minimum of ten years apart, two different versions of where his parents took him directly after his birth, and a multitude of other factual discrepancies.) If it's written in the NT, you believe it? If it's miraculous, you'll swallow it? Take the raising of Lazarus -- how can that story only be in John???? The miracle that would have followed Jesus as his most amazing feat, done in public, and that would have caused hordes of grieving people to dog him to repeat it with their deceased family members -- and the other 3 gospel writers never heard of it? This strikes you as reasonable? It is a perfect example of a wonder-inducing story appearing in the NT and making no sense whatsoever.
As for all of us unbelievers deserving hell -- well, I'm not a Christian, so a big fat fuck you to you and your love god. But, you do know that it's not just our unwillingness to truly seek the enlightenment you achieved? You have read those NT passages that state that God picks who will receive the message and who will be blind to it, haven't you?
Your religion is a jerry-built construction that doesn't hold together and doesn't make sense to those who will seek its true nature with the full use of their ability to read reflectively and think critically. I urge you to humbly make this quest. If you fail, you may have to sit in the corner of the classroom. (Not for eternity -- we'll let you out when the bell rings.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

I mean, as an atheist, i still have a moral code that tells me that NO amount of sin on this planet is worth an eternity of suffering.

More than that, as an atheist you have a moral code that you arrived at by actually *thinking* about what is and is not moral as opposed to just getting the answers from a book. As an atheist, you know that you can't shift the blame or responsibility on anyone but yourself; you can't rely on a 'god' to tell you right from wrong, it's all up to you. That in itself makes the morality of an atheist far superior to that of a theist, because at least you *own* your moral victories and failures.

True, too true.

 

[Keith&Co.]

... because I have never been able to find anyone who could provide a reasonable and conscientiously plausible naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead, even touching, talking to, walking with and even eating with. ....

You know, revivin, just because you can't find or won't accept any non-woo accounting for this fairy tale is not exactly positive proof that it's true.
Your ignorance of, or denial of, alternate explanations is not the same as evidence in favor of anything.
If the cops arrest you for murder for the simple reason that they don't have any evidence someone else committed the crime, would you just accept that and plead guilty?

Now, what was it you were saying about atheists not wanting evidence?

 

[Underseer]

I just wanted to let you know why I am a Christian. I'll try to keep it short. In Jan. 2001 without getting into details, I realized miraculously all things sum up in Christ. Effectively I was acknowledging that Jesus was my full satisfaction, that He is God, that I was a sinner, sin leads to death and the second death which is Hell, and I was forgiven by accepting He died on the cross for the sins of the world and received eternal life by His resurrected the 3rd day. The reason I believe Christianity is proven true is because I have never been able to find anyone who could provide a reasonable and conscientiously plausible naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead, even touching, talking to, walking with and even eating with.

After I got saved I realized God was proven because that which does not exist can't cause anything; that is, non-existence can bring anything into existence since nothingness does not exist. And there can't be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because if there was you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you that you are now should have already happened. And self-contradictorily you should never have existed if this alleged past eternity were true because it would go on for eternity never reaching this point.

I am not sure how to get you to believe what I do because it was miracle for me how I changed from believing one thing then instantly believing Jesus was Lord, Savior and Creator. All I can say is the change took place in the deepest part of me, even deeper, in my spirit's intuition, communion and conscience and not in the soulical rough sensational area of mind, will and emotion. I did search God out with all my heart and soul and that's why I found Him, so the only reason someone is not saved is because they don't search God out with all their heart and soul.

God exists because no one can disprove god?

You don't seem to understand something very basic about the burden of proof, particularly with regard to non-falsifiable claims.

I cannot disprove the existence of faeries. If I try, no matter what I do, you can play a series of rhetorical games that always leave open the possibility that faeries exist no matter what I do to try and prove that they don't (i.e., the faeries were in the garage while you were searching the shed). Thus, the existence of faeries is a non-falsifiable claim. This means that I cannot disprove faeries even if faeries don't in fact exist, but it is possible to prove their existence if faeries do in fact exist. This is why the burden of proof has to be on the person making the claim.

However, according to you, this proves that faeries exist, because not being able to disprove a claim makes the claim true. In fact, if logic works the way you seem to think, then all non-falsifiable claims become true now and forever. This includes faeries, vampires, werewolves, elves, bigfoot, djinn, not to mention every single one of the 8000+ gods that are or have ever been worshiped by man.

This is precisely why non-falsifiable existence claims are simply not taken seriously unless and until someone provides real proof. As Pauli famously said of non-falsifiable claims, they are "not even wrong."

 

[revivin]

God exists because no one can disprove god?

You could disprove God if you could disprove the uncreated Creator by showing how infinite regress is possible or how something can come from nothing.

Based on the evidence God exists because that which doesn't exist can't cause anything, nor can there be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

And we know which God claim is the correct one because nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings.

Praise the Lord!

 

[Barbarian]

You could disprove God if you could disprove the uncreated Creator by showing how infinite regress is possible

Infinite regress is trivially possible. What's wrong with it? (apart from you having been brainwashed to parrot that 'it's a problem')?

or how something can come from nothing.

Like YHWH? Check out the theory behind virtual particles; the math is easy, it's all linear and stuff.

Based on the evidence God exists because that which doesn't exist can't cause anything, nor can there be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

There cannot be a zero anywhere on the number line because wherever it would be, it would have to be to the left of that position?

And we know which God claim is the correct one because nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings.

People making shit up? What is more natural than that? They made up entire false religions (i.e. all the others, from your point of view), what stops them from telling a badly constructed narrative? (I'm thinking about the multiple contradictions within the gospel and Acts narratives).

 

[dystopian]

God exists because no one can disprove god?

You could disprove God if you could disprove the uncreated Creator by showing how infinite regress is possible or how something can come from nothing.

Your argument makes the mistake of assuming that if infinite regress is impossible that this somehow neccesitates/proves god; it does not.

Based on the evidence God exists because that which doesn't exist can't cause anything,

Actually, we don't know that 'based on the evidence' at all; just look at virtual particles to understand this. Incidentally, your argument is a prime example of circular reasoning; it also fails to take into account that there could potentially be many 'first causes' that do not conform to what we could consider god. There is no logical basis (that actually holds up to scrutiny) for claiming that a supposed first cause HAS to be a godlike entity. In fact, the first cause couldn't be god since that would violate the very law of cause and effect that you are relying on to prove the necessity of a first cause: in order to arrive at complexity one must start with simplicity, one can not for instance build a complex mechanism without first building the less complex parts it is made of; yet god, as the supreme being and creator, is by definition more complex than the universe he/she/it creates. Therefore, god violates the principle of cause and effect, and one can not appeal to cause and effect to prove god's existence.

nor can there be an infinite regress of cause and effects, because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

So what? What reason do you have for believing that that is at all a problem for anything? If infinite regress is real, then yes, it is possible that everything that has ever happened has happened before... but SO WHAT? Just because something happened once, doesn't mean it can't happen again. Your argument fails.

And we know which God claim is the correct one because nobody can find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings.

Lol, wut?

First off, there is absolutely zero reason for anyone to believe that these are *actual* eyewitness testimonies. Just because you believe they are, doesn't mean they're real. To the rest of us, these accounts read like fiction. We no more have to give naturalistic explanations for them than we have to do so to explain the events in harry potter. Fiction is fiction. However, let's say for the sake of argument that we do accept these are real eyewitness testimonies. To state that nobody can find a naturalistic explanation for the things people claim to have witnesses is either extraordinarily ignorant, or an outright lie. Here, I'll give you a naturalistic explanation: schizophrenia. Or indeed, any number of things that could affect perception. We even know of cases of mass hallucination, where multiple people have the same hallucination (although really, the apostle's accounts are different enough from each other that that isn't even necessary, especially since it makes more sense they just copied from each other)

 

[abaddon]

... all things sum up in Christ ... Jesus ...God ... sinner, sin ... death, the second death .. Hell ... the sins of the world ... eternal life ... resurrected ... the Apostles ... saved ... God ... non-existence ... nothingness ... eternity ... spirit's intuition, communion and conscience ... soul ...

I am not sure how to get you to believe what I do…

You cannot because I don’t recognize any of those words as meaningful, since I don’t value whatever it is they’re intended to represent. I know, in conception, what you’re saying. But to my ears it’s like talk from some alternate universe.

the only reason someone is not saved is because they don't search God out with all their heart and soul.

Your whole post is from the head. And the concepts found inside the head were put there by other people. You cannot determine how reality is or isn’t by either just thinking or feeling about it. That’ll mostly turn up things people already put in your head. The stuff about intuiting it in the heart is a rationalization. We all know "I've seen it!" generally counts for more than "My opinion about it is". But whatever you've experienced will have been shaped by the belief/indoctrination.

If you wanted to be convincing in any way to me, you’d have to use more concrete earthy language that reference mundane experience, as my personality just doesn't value the weird metaphysics of old books (though I do enjoy stories!). If your God was “love” or "the unity of all" or something along those lines, I’d at least relate to what’s being expressed though the word "God" would strike me as ripe for creating confusion. But the instant theists drift off into the “cause of everything” stuff, then I know they've lost themselves inside their heads; and I get the impression they're just running screaming from the uncertainties of their earthly life into a mental world where they can pretend some dusty old beliefs are certainties.

 

[Cobalt]

I am not sure how to get you to believe what I do…

We'll, we at least agree about that.

 

[revivin]

Your argument makes the mistake of assuming that if infinite regress is impossible that this somehow neccesitates/proves god; it does not.

Looks like a little repeating is order. If there is this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects proposed by atheists then by that definition you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is what we typically refer to as God.

 

[Cobalt]

Your argument makes the mistake of assuming that if infinite regress is impossible that this somehow neccesitates/proves god; it does not.

Looks like a little repeating is order. If there is this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects proposed by atheists then by that definition you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is what we typically refer to as God.

Repeating things doesn't add to their truthiness. If you've written this before you were wrong on a number of key point the first time, and you're still wrong now.

 

[revivin]

Repeating things doesn't add to their truthiness.

Avoiding things does not make their truth go way.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Repeating things doesn't add to their truthiness.

Avoiding things does not make their truth go way.

Good point.
Of course, when we ask for you to explain something that's not clear, you just repeat it.
That's avoiding an actual discussion.

Anyway, the definition of 'infinite regress' does NOT include a statement that 'i would have come to exist before now.'
That assumes
(1) that the infinite regress is always going to be the same thing. I don't see that as part of the definition of infinite regress.
(2) that i would be aware of myself having come to exist at some point before this existence. The entire past life/reincarnation industry depends on the fact that we cannot determine our previous existences (without the $pecial help of trained pa$t-life therapi$t$, anyway).
(3) that repeating gobbledygook is somehow an argument.

 

[dystopian]

Your argument makes the mistake of assuming that if infinite regress is impossible that this somehow neccesitates/proves god; it does not.

Looks like a little repeating is order. If there is this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects proposed by atheists

Looks like a little education is in order; 'atheists' propose no such thing. Whether or not there was a first cause for the universe or whether there is an infinite regress is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not we are atheists. If there was a first cause, then this first cause would most certainly not be a god.

then by that definition you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

How odd; you're replying to the first part of my post with an argument that I already refuted in the SECOND part of the same post you're responding to. I'll repeat the argument:

Who cares? IF infinite regress is real, and IF that means "I should have already happened"; then so what? Is there some rule somewhere that says "I" can't repeatedly come into existence? Maybe I've lived an infinite number of times; but so what? What difference does that make?

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

No. Saying that infinite regress means that I must have come into existence before now does NOT mean that therefore nature needs a cause outside of itself; because again, there is absolutely no problem with the possibility of me having existed before now. Again, so what if I came into being before now? I have an infinite amount of time to be born, live, and die over and over again. There is no contradiction or problem.

Of course, there's ANOTHER problem with your argument (One I have no doubt you'll be just as eager to pretend I didn't point as the one above); and that's that the possibility of me having had an eternity to come into being before now could be cancelled out by the fact that in addition to infinite regress, there could ALSO be *infinite possibilities*; which means that even with an infinite amount of time it is entirely possible for an event to happen only once or even never. If you need to visualize this, imagine that events occur when we throw a die. Since we're dealing with infinite possibilities, we're dealing with a die that has an infinite number of sides; which means that *no matter how many times* you throw it, you can never exhaust all possible outcomes.

This uncreated Creator is what we typically refer to as God.

Special pleading fallacy.

Of course, your god would still actually inhabit *A* space-time, just not ours. You can't actually get rid of infinite regress by placing god outside of time-space; because for your god to *create* anything, time must by definition exist for him. If god was truly outside of time and space, he could not act, and thus could not be your precious first cause. This means that this god would in fact simply be an entity existing within another universe, or possibly what we call 'the bulk'. So yet again, you have infinite regress, just of a slightly different variety.

 

[revivin]

Whether or not there was a first cause for the universe or whether there is an infinite regress is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not we are atheists. If there was a first cause, then this first cause would most certainly not be a god.

Since it is proven that infinite regress and something from nothing are impossible this is central to why atheism is false. The first cause is outside of nature, outside of time and space of nature, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is exactly what we are talking about when we say God.