/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5274971]

What are the best apologetics books out there?

[Anonymous No.5274982]

I'll post what I have.

[Anonymous No.5274986]

Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology is pretty great.

Mere Christianity is exceedingly weak.

Also, by apologetics, do you mean evangelical sort of ploying for souls? Many other theologies don't even have a apologetic form to speak of.

[Anonymous No.5274989]

Not mere Christianity

[Anonymous No.5274994]

>>5274986

What's Natural Theology in a nutshell?

How is MC weak?

By apologetics, I mean defense of the faith.

[Anonymous No.5275002]

>>5274989

Why not?

[Anonymous No.5275024]

>>5275002

>This in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creature with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark could be a word without meaning.

Atheism does not mean that the universe has no meaning. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. Additionally, just because we can conceive of a universe with or without meaning does not mean that the universe must necessarily have meaning. This is the biggest problem with Lewis's argumentation style. He continually makes these sorts of ridiculous false choices.

>conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver.

This is just a crazy leap. How does he determine that the there is a "moral law," that it's objective, that it's source cannot be found in the natural world, and that it necessitates a supernatural lawgiver? What does "supernatural" even mean?
> I amtrying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.


First, there is nothing that prevents a lunatic from imparting great moral teachings. Second, there are many other possibilities here. Maybe he didn't exist, and is an invention of whoever wrote the gospels. Maybe he was a great teacher who didn't claim to be the son of god and that was an invention of the gospels. Maybe he was a guy who did a whole lot of psychedelics and claimed to be the son of god as a purposeful metaphor and the teachings are an invention of the writer of the gospels. The point here is that Lewis is creating a false choice.

Cont.

[Anonymous No.5275030]

>>5274994
A dense series of arguments relating to, well, the evidences of God via natural phenomena.

Impossible to summarize why MC is weak. It's just wholly outmoded. Don't bother unless you want to watch each point disintegrate after a bit of further reading.

Yes, but "defense of faith" is actually not a given amongst theologies. It's actually a very strange thing to do, as far as I'm concerned. I don't understand its so-called necessity at all. Not that I take Christianity to be so overwhelmingly obvious, I should say.

[Anonymous No.5275041]

>>5275024
>If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts-i.e. of materialism and astronomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?
Because they are true? Because the evidence points to their being true? What different does it make that a series of accidents led to the discovery of truth if the truth is demonstrably true?
>I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.


This is one of the dumbest arguments in the book. Lewis's analogy in no way correlates to the scientific process or invalidates it's efficacy.
>If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake.

No you don't. You just have to lack the belief that there is a god. That's what the word means.

[Anonymous No.5275043]

>>5275024
>>5275030

Seems to me these weaker points aren't used as arguments there, but to explain what faith is.

[Anonymous No.5275055]

>>5275043
Regardless his arguments where universally terrible.

[Anonymous No.5275059]

i wonder... will anyone even mention Plantinga this time?

[Anonymous No.5275066]

>>5275055

Do you know of an author with better arguments for the same things?

[Anonymous No.5275069]

>>5275024
>Maybe he didn't exist, and is an invention of whoever wrote the gospels.

This made me drop everything else you said. If you seriously think this is a possibility, your opinion is of no value to anyone who cares for any strict scholarship on the subject.

[Anonymous No.5275070]

>>5275066
Keirkkagard

[Anonymous No.5275080]

>>5275055
It's true, OP. Although, he is actively advocated by even fairly prestigious evangelical think tanks like OCCA at Oxford.

I think that's some evidence of the weakness of evangelical Christianity; moreover, and more fundamentally, its fetishization of apologetics as constructive at all should be even more telling.

[Anonymous No.5275083]

>>5275041
I think the main thing about atheism is this though, that separates it from most religious fanaticism.

It's that we don't lie to ourselves.

It's not that we care if you believe in a God, it's that you suppose that there MUST be a God that it is LOGICAL to beleive there is a God. That it's REASONABLE. But it's not, you believe in God because you have faith and there's not thing wrong with that.

The difference is that we say we DO NOT BELIEVE there IS a God. We don't think we must be right, we know that we very well could be wrong, we just believe by whatever greatness of odds there is, that we are right because have left it to logic and not faith.

[Anonymous No.5275089]

>>5275069
Jesus' existence is far from solidified its likely, but far from proven. Care to come up with any ACTUAL counter arguments?

[Anonymous No.5275091]

>>5275070

Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.5275093]

>>5275083

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

[Anonymous No.5275096]

>>5275091
I should be ashamed.

[Anonymous No.5275104]

>>5275089

Jesus' existence is not even debated by scholars anymore. I don't need arguments for that, it's just how it is.

[Anonymous No.5275112]

>>5275104
*most
And I also believe he probably exisisted.

[Anonymous No.5275132]

>>5275104
Too right. I can't even recall a modestly convincing counter to crop up in the literature in at least a decade. Whereas the case for historical Jesus mounts monthly.

There is much more fertile ground to be found elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.5275139]

>>5275083
"odds"

if God were true, things would look exactly the same. so, how are you deducing "odds"?

you're disgusting

[Anonymous No.5275176]

>>5275083

False dichotomy between faith and logic. I'm Catholic and logic is my guide. I just know how to use logic to see where the shortcomings of being a human with limited logic can lead.

[Anonymous No.5275350]

Not exactly a book, but Teilhardism is as far as you can go as a jesuit physicist. The fun thing is, the God in Teilhardism is no longer Christian at all but some sort of eternal superintelligence.

[Anonymous No.5275463]

>>5275176
You make me proud.

[Anonymous No.5275488]

>>5275350
>tfw every decent theologian over the past 50 years has been French

I shouldn't have studied Chinese and Korean. What a fucking waste.

[Anonymous No.5275494]

I'd recommend Thomas Aquinas and Neo-Scholasticism. Edward Feser's books on him are a great place to start.

[Anonymous No.5275531]

>>5275488
He has no place in catholic doctrine though, they actually forbade him to write, though it was too late. Plus he tries to shove Jesus down your throat even if his theme is much more abstract, it's basically pure theism. And I never saw the original, only secondary literature.

[Anonymous No.5275562]

>>5275350

VALIS

[Anonymous No.5275585]

>>5275176
Get over yourself.

[Anonymous No.5275590]

>>5275585

Ad hominem. Completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.5275599]

>>5274971

Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man by Chesterton

[Anonymous No.5275612]

>>5275599

>Everlasting Man

About to read that.

[Anonymous No.5275757]

>>5275041
>Because the evidence points to their being true?

Are you serious?

The evidence is that the universe is incredibly fine tuned.
Which "suggests" that it was no mere accident.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

The only escape for the atheist is to imagine that their is actually a "multiverse", with an infinite number of universes.
Or some other "Alice in wonderland" hypothesis.

As for the origin of life, well the only law of science we have concerning that topic blatantly disagrees with the current speculations.
The Law of Biogenesis: the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction. That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.
>life does not arise from non-living material

Abiogenesis has never once been demonstrated, or observed.
It is merely assumed to have happened, with absolutely zero evidence, save for "we are here".

Not only that but the notion that information could arise from naturalistic processes has also been refuted.
http://creation.com/laws-of-information-1


Could you point me to the "evidence" that you were referring to?

[Anonymous No.5275768]

>>5275757

That's some tight posting. I'm impressed.

[Anonymous No.5275900]

>>5274971
I posted these in the thread the other day, but in case anyone missed them.

"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler, and Frank Turek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyHWtQN4yLM

"Cold Case Christianity" by J. Warner Wallace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQmodO2quW0

"Evidence for Christianity" by Josh McDowell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj2d2cW_2fc

"Without Excuse" by Werner Gitt.
http://creation.com/laws-of-information-1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v47eG3fWUs0

I think one of the best arguments can be made from the empty tomb of Jesus, and the convictions of the apostles.
Neither the Romans, nor the Jews had any reason to steal the body.
Also if that had been the case, they would have had irrefutable evidence the resurrection was false.
If the apostles had taken the body, then they fabricated the story.
What was their motivation to forsake their homes, family, and former lives to go out and preach the Gospel?
Why did they not recant when faced with persecution, and death?
It seems absurd that someone would fabricate a lie that gained them absolutely nothing, and be willing to suffer and die for that very same "made up" story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBLdHiaFYwk

>>5275768
Thanks brother.
I try to defend the faith as best I can.

2 Corinthians 10:5
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

[Anonymous No.5275921]

>>5275900

You're doing great. Proud to be Christian.

[Anonymous No.5276297]

>>5275083
>that it is LOGICAL to beleive there is a God. That it's REASONABLE. But it's not

How is it illogical to believe in God?
What is your logical reasoning that determines God does not exist?

I only ask because there are several logical arguments that support the existence of God.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Whatever begins to exist has a cause. see Causality
The Universe began to exist. see the Big Bang
Therefore, the Universe had a cause. Conclusion logically follows.

Causality also tells us the cause has to be greater than the effect.
What ever caused the universe had to have been extremely powerful.
The big bang tells us that time, space, and matter all came into existence in this event.
The cause would have to be eternal, and immaterial.
The cause would also have to be personal since it choose to create a universe.

God seems to fit the definition quite well.

The Teleological Argument
Every design must have a designer.
The universe is extremely fined tuned. i.e. designed for life
Therefore the universe has a designer.

The parameters for the universal constants are so precisely fine tuned whoever designed it must have been extremely intelligent.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

The Argument from Morality.
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

The only out for this is to claim that morality is just a human construct.
If that is the case then its only a matter of opinion what is right or wrong.
That claim, to me, seems absurd.

I would also add there is historical evidence to support Christianity being true, which would also confirm God's existence.
see "Evidence for Christianity" by Josh McDowell, or "Cold Case Christianity" by Jim Wallace for some of that evidence.

I do not intend to defend these arguments, and I do not ask you to refute them. I present them as evidence for "logical reasoning".
I merely ask for similar logical reasoning for the nonexistence of God.
i.e Why shouldn't I believe in God?
Also. How do you account for the empty tomb of Jesus?

PS
“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.” - Isaac Newton

[Anonymous No.5276312]

>>5275921
change "catholic" to "christian" and you can include a bunch more

[Anonymous No.5276337]

I didn't expect such a conventionally Christian crowd to show up out of /lit/. I expect some more postmodern approaches, if anyone at all spoke up. Here I am though, in the midst of apologetic soundbytes about the Kalamazoo argument.

[Anonymous No.5276340]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Utmost_for_His_Highest

[Anonymous No.5276345]

>>5276312

Change it to Jew and you can add the world.

[Anonymous No.5276569]

>>5276312
I got this one. (pic related)

[Anonymous No.5277862]

"The name of Jesus" by Kenneth E. Hagin.
It's a fairly quick read, and the message is very powerful.

It is not a literary masterpiece, but it is definitely worth the read.
Also the author backs up his statements with scripture. Which is always a plus for me.

I don't think the book is meant as an apologetic work, but if you apply the knowledge to your life, you will be a much better witness to the world.

[Anonymous No.5277882]

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full

Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging methodologies all suggest that religious believers are particularly likely to use their own beliefs as a guide when reasoning about God's beliefs compared to when reasoning about other people's beliefs. People's estimates of God's beliefs were more strongly correlated with their own beliefs than were their estimates of a broad range of other people's beliefs (Studies 1–4). Manipulating people's own beliefs similarly affected their estimates of God's beliefs more than it affected estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 5 and 6), demonstrating that estimates of God's beliefs are causally influenced at least in part by one's own beliefs. Finally, neuroimaging evidence demonstrated that reasoning about God's beliefs tends to activate the same regions that are active when reasoning about one's own beliefs (indeed, statistically indistinguishable in the whole-brain analysis),

[Anonymous No.5277899]

>>5276569
>Implying the Orthodox Church wasn't actually a massive tumor that needed to be removed for Russia to move past feudalism

The confiscation of church lands was largely supported by peasants, because they knew the church was a corrupt remnant of the Tsarist state. It was a necessary blow to reactionary forces present during the Civil war and after.

If you want generic God bashing go read Bakunin.

[Anonymous No.5277905]

>>5276569
Whats the colour coding mean?

[Anonymous No.5277910]

>>5277882
Isn't this kind of a no-brainer? Of course your beliefs (among which are beliefs about God) are going to guide your estimation of God's beliefs.

[Anonymous No.5277926]

>>5277882
>extrapolating anything from brain imaging in 2014

Atheism has much less faulty things to say than that which is based on neuroscience. There will be a day for it, but it is not yet.

[Anonymous No.5278918]

>>5277882
>http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full
Could it be people believe the things that they do about religion, because they think that is what God believes?

I get my religious beliefs from the bible, because I believe it is the word of God.
If I were to take such a test, the results would likely be the same.

>>5277899
wat
I did not make that pic, but I think it was made to combat the statement "Religion is holding back science".
Hence the collection of religious people who have also contributed to science.

>>5277905
I dunno.

[Anonymous No.5279188]

>>5276297
I can't believe there is still people who buys this crap.

>The Universe began to exist. see the Big Bang
False. We can't know what was there at "time 0" because we don't have a theory of gravitation that works with QM.
All we know is that the universe is expanding and therefore, extrapolating, it was smaller in the past.

For all we know there might be some mechanism by which the universe expansion eventually slows down, and starts to go back until we get a new big bang. No need for an external being.
Causality is assumed to work inside of the universe.
Same thing for
>The big bang tells us that time, space, and matter all came into existence in this event.

>The cause would have to be eternal, and immaterial.
>The cause would also have to be personal since it choose to create a universe.
This is really just childish. You are happily making the exact axioms you need to say "oh, look, god exist!".

>The universe is extremely fined tuned. i.e. designed for life.
The strong anthropic principle is a symptom of straight mental retardation.

Fine tuning is a NECESSITY for life, meaning that it was the only way life could happen.
If the universe wasn't fine tuned, life wouldn't have happened. Big fucking deal.

>If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
>Morality is objective and absolute.
>Therefore, God must exist.
Seriously is this an epic meme or funny copypasta? Nobody can take this seriously right?
>If morality is not objective, god doesn't exist.
>Morality is subjective.
>Therefore god doesn't exist hurr durr

There is no general logical reasoning to refute god because the definition of god is(purposely) made vague in order to refute whatever counter argument one can come up with.

[Anonymous No.5279234]

>>5279188
>>The Universe began to exist. see the Big Bang
>False.

Where do you get your information?
The universe most assuredly had a beginning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe."

If the universe had no beginning, why do they attribute it with an age?

>For all we know there might be some mechanism by which the universe expansion eventually slows down, and starts to go back until we get a new big bang.

The cosmological evidence would disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch
"Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) has led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating."

Also even if it were to eventually collapse back on its self, it would still require a beginning, as it can not keep this up forever.
see The laws of conservation of energy.
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

>If the universe wasn't fine tuned, life wouldn't have happened. Big fucking deal.
This statement is true, but it does not explain the outcome.

If you were the lone survivor of a plane crash, and someone asked you "How is it that you survived?", would an acceptable answer be "Well if I had not I would not be here to answer you"?
Yes the statement is true, but again it does not answer the question.

>There is no general logical reasoning to refute god
It would appear not.

What about the empty tomb of Jesus?
How do you account for it?

[Anonymous No.5279304]

>>5279234
Again, the big bang can only proceed by extrapolation and it is based on general relativity, which accounts only for the geometry of spacetime on large scales.
But once you get at the subatomic level, when QM start to get into the picture stuff gets messy.
If I recall correctly the can only get to something like 10^-x seconds with some x and then we don't know. They can however attribute a large scales age in billion of years.
So it's a matter of some fractions of a second.

>"Recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernovae as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) has led to speculation that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity but rather accelerating."
Speculation, exactly.
We don't know much about the contributions of the so called dark stuff, dark matter and dark energy and how they might fit in the big picture.

>Also even if it were to eventually collapse back on its self, it would still require a beginning, as it can not keep this up forever.
What has the law of conservation of energy to do with this?
The conservation of energy states that in a closed system there is some number which doesn't change with time.
The universe should be closed(at least by definition) therefore the energy is conserved.

>If you were the lone survivor of a plane crash, and someone asked you "How is it that you survived?", would an acceptable answer be "Well if I had not I would not be here to answer you"?
Asking how is of course important, but this example is faulty because it implies there might have been different outcomes and somehow this particular happened(survived).
When it comes to the universe, all we know is that life is an outcome and might just be the only one, therefore what we can say is just that fine tuning is needed.

>What about the empty tomb of Jesus?
Where is this tomb of Jesus and why should I trust a book when it comes to big claims like those about the son of god?

I'm just arguing for doubt here, not for certainty.

[Anonymous No.5279325]

>>5279304
Because you trust your philosophically infantile fedora books, why not have an open mind, y'know being a "man of science" isn't all it's cracked up to be when people have a hard time taking you seriously.

[Anonymous No.5279332]

>>5279188
>There is no general logical reasoning to refute god because the definition of god is(purposely) made vague in order to refute whatever counter argument one can come up with.

While I cannot speak for everyone who believes in God, I personally believe in the God of the bible.
The Creator of the universe, and the Author of life.
The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has died for the sins of mankind.
That God.
Is that specific enough for you?

It's not that the definition is vague, its more that it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something.

"Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas... for it is the assertion of a universal negative".-G.K. Chesterton

I never asked anyone to disprove God.
I asked for the logical reasoning behind the assumption that He does not exist.
One cannot disprove the existence of flying pigs.
One can provide logical reasoning for the lack of faith in their existence.
Pigs do not have the physical characteristics normally associated with creatures that fly.(they don't have wings)
No one has ever claimed to see a flying pig.
Therefore I conclude that no such a creature exists.
How do you logically reach the conclusion that God does not exist?

>>5279304
>What has the law of conservation of energy to do with this?
Energy is being used up, it is not being replaced, it will eventually run out.

>Where is this tomb of Jesus
I don't know, but I would assume the people that put Him in it knew.
The Romans, and Jews of the day would have known. If the tomb were not empty, they would have easily refuted the claims of resurrection.
>why should I trust a book when it comes to big claims like those about the son of god?
It is the most logical explanation for the convictions of the apostles. see>>5275900

If their story is false it seems illogical for them to have done the things that they did.
Perhaps there is some other explanation you can offer that is more logical.

[Anonymous No.5279341]

>>5279332
Where did I say I conclude that God doesn't exist?
Atheism is the rejection of the arguments provided for the existence of this "god" thing.

Anyway, your definition is really really vague.
None of the words you used gives an arbitrary person any means to find out if this "god" exists or not, except for just a book that tells you so.

>Energy is being used up, it is not being replaced, it will eventually run out.
This is just plain wrong.
Energy is by definition the conserved quantity resulting from the symmetry of the laws of physics with respect to time, as a result of Noether theorem.

>If their story is false it seems illogical for them to have done the things that they did.
Really? It seems more logical to you that basically magic happened rather than a bunch of people lying for whatever reason?

>>5279325
Nice argument brother.

[Anonymous No.5279457]

>>5279341
>Where did I say I conclude that God doesn't exist?
>Atheism is the rejection of the arguments provided for the existence of this "god" thing.
Rejection != refutation.

Also you definition of atheism does not match that of the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
Atheism:
1 the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

>Anyway, your definition is really really vague.
Again I am not asking you to disprove the existence of God.
I am asking for the logical reasoning behind the assumption He does not exist.

>It seems more logical to you that basically magic happened rather than a bunch of people lying for whatever reason?
Yes.
Why would someone suffer, and die for something they knew was a lie?
People will die for a lie, I'll give you that, but no one dies for something that they know is a lie.
That is absurd. Why did they not recant?
Perhaps you missed the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBLdHiaFYwk

As previously stated, there may be some other rational reason that caused them to forsake their jobs, homes, and family to go out and preach the Gospel, but evidence we have seems to support the notion that their story is true.

If you would have me believe there is some other cause for their convictions, you would need to both provide that account, and evidence that justifies that account.


At least some atheists can be honest with themselves.

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption.... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do.... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom" - Aldous Huxley, Confessions of a Professed Atheist


If you have logical reasons for your lack of faith, please share them with us.
Again I ask you. How do you logically conclude that God does not exist?

[Anonymous No.5279471]

Aren't you supposed to believe in god out of some personal revelation and conversation w/ the divine as opposed to having it proved for you?

[Anonymous No.5279482]

>>5275757
>The evidence is that the universe is incredibly fine tuned.

This is simply turning around cause and effect. Instead of us being a result of the universe, the universe, according to you is the result of there being humans. Not very likely

>The only escape for the atheist is to imagine that their is actually a "multiverse", with an infinite number of universes.

Except that we have evidence for it

http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html

>Abiogenesis has never once been demonstrated, or observed.

Abiogenesis is an unknown at this point. Unknown =! falsified

[Anonymous No.5279485]

>>5279332
You are a terrified, brainwashed little cultist. Do you realize what a hysterical, insane person you sound like? None of what you believe in ever happened, and you know it. You're just afraid of hell and tired of wondering "BUT WASSIT MEEEAAAAAN"? Being a christian in 2014 is a very good indicator that you have nothing worthwhipe to contribute and should be entirely ignored in every facit of life. Which thankfully seens to be slowly occuring in the develope world. Enjoy being an intellectual nigger.

[Anonymous No.5279496]

>>5279485
You're as much a faggot zealot as he is, shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.5279500]

>>5279341
It was a statement not an argument brother.

[Anonymous No.5279505]

>>5279457

>dictionaries decide what is true and what is false

lolwat

>Why would someone suffer, and die for something they knew was a lie?

Only Stephen did, and he was a convert

>Again I ask you. How do you logically conclude that God does not exist?

The idea of God is not consist with itself and not consistent with reality. It's not defined, and if it's defined, the definition isn't used consistently. Also, it's not falsifiable

[Anonymous No.5279520]

>>5279457
>Rejection != refutation
Refutation implies rejection though(at least for a rational person), it's just that you can't always convince your opponent, it's normal.

As I said, I never said I know that God doesn't exist.
I'm agnostic/ignostic.

Also, good job finding a definition that agrees with your strawmen about atheists being on the same level as religious people.
I just don't believe in god, that's it. Anyway, let's leave definitions apart, as I specified that I don't know if God exists or not.
God might exist(given a good definition that agrees with some of the historical definitions).

Where they absolutely sure they were going to die and they couldn't obtain anything from it?
What if they thought they could gain power and control by spreading yet another messianic religion that promised people heaven and shit, gaining a lot of followers and force by doing so?
That would be a really good reason to fake a resurrection in order to make people believe to do so.

Then they overshot and got killed by the establishment.

My "logical" reason for the lack of faith is that I don't see any logical reason to have one and every argument I've heard is either fallacious or based on big assumption or simply not testable.

[Anonymous No.5279527]

>>5279520
I'm the original arguer btw.
Also I forgot a quote for the second part, starting from "Where they absolutely sure..."

[Anonymous No.5279528]

>>5279457
Post a link to that quote

[Anonymous No.5279538]

>>5279520
Empiricism is a shit. Lrn2Rationalism.

[Anonymous No.5279550]

>>5279538
If your message is in response to my "not testable" argument, I want to specify that by testable I just mean a reasonable objective justification for the induction of the postulates by which you might deduce God.

If that's not the case, expand your argument please.

[Anonymous No.5279552]

>>5279538

Planes fly, metaphysical brooms don't

[Anonymous No.5279576]

>>5279550
That has something to do with it but not entirely. I have better things to do than debate or argue with an anon. You're obviously stuck in your ways and only see things through them. Giving "rational" explanations will be dismissed. I hope you're happy though and wish no malice on you. You're journey will continue and only you can choose what to believe or not believe in or what actions to take. Sadly the point of my STATEMENT was not received.

[Anonymous No.5279579]

>>5279552
A vulgar misconstrued statement.

[Anonymous No.5279586]

>>5279576
>*your journey
Damn phone.

[Anonymous No.5279589]

Ravi Zacharias' "Cries of the Heart".

Anything on CARM.org

[Anonymous No.5279594]

>>5279576
>bla bla bla you don't agree with me therefore you are wrong
Your concise statement only proves that YOU are the one stuck in your ways.

If the only way you can find a place for your god is by denying empiricism, congratulations.

[Anonymous No.5279596]

>>5275024
It necessarily follows that if there is no God, life is random meaninglessness, and whatever meaning you personally impute to your life dies with you, and eventually is buried in universal heat death.

[Anonymous No.5279608]

>>5279579

Rationalism exists to prove or disprove that a proposition is consistent with itself, empiricism exists to corroborate/falsify that propositions are consistent with reality. To get to any knowledge (not truth, because truth implies absolutely accurate information, which is impossible), you need both

[Anonymous No.5279613]

>>5275900
Always so wonderful to find another brother in this place. "Who Moved the Stone?" is another good book.

[Anonymous No.5279614]

>>5279471
How could I have ever had that experience, if I did not first believe it in my mind?

I cannot speak for everyone, but I was an atheist. I thought there was no evidence that any religion was true.
It took me first examining the evidence, to come to the conclusion that God did exist, and Christianity was true.
Only then was I ready to accept the truth in my heart.
I agree that knowing something in your mind is not the same as believing it in your heart.


>>5279482
>the universe, according to you is the result of there being humans
I said no such thing. The universe was created by God.

In reference to the multiverse
>Except that we have evidence for it
By definition alternate universes are something we cannot detect, observe, or otherwise scientifically know about.
>http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html
"This theory posits", "This could have created", "It's not impossible"
Speculation abounds.

>Abiogenesis is an unknown at this point. Unknown =! falsified
See the Law of Biogenesis.
Or any dictionary for that matter.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis
Abiogenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter—called also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abiogenesis
Abiogenesis: The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis
Abiogenesis: the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

Notice how they all refer you to "spontaneous generation".
That is because it is the same claim, and it has been disproven by science.

>>5279505
>Dictionaries are false
What ever you say.
>Only Stephen did, and he was a convert
Not so.
http://sententias.org/2013/10/21/the-historicity-for-the-martyrdom-of-the-apostles/

>The idea of God is not consist with itself and not consistent with reality
How do you figure?

>>5279520
>Where they absolutely sure they were going to die and they couldn't obtain anything from it?
Why then did they not recant when faced with death?
If they had some grand plan of obtaining power, surely they would have recanted when things did not work out.

>My "logical" reason for the lack of faith is that I don't see any logical reason to have one
None so deaf as those that will not hear.
None so blind as those that will not see.

>>5279528
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley#Quotes

[Anonymous No.5279615]

>>5279596

That doesn't necessarily follow. A universe with a god can be equally meaningless

[Anonymous No.5279621]

>>5279594
Nice Tu Quoque. There's another reason I don't waste my time arguing with you and will end my conversation with you anon now. Me exiting this thread will give you a false sense of victory. You will feel like you've won. But there was no argument in the first place. You mistake statements for arguments which annoys me. But this all ends now.....

[Anonymous No.5279630]

>>5279471
Not at all. The evidence not only of a God, but Who God is, exists all around you. One day, it clicks, and you get it. Then you have a choice to make, whether you are For this God and what He is doing, or Against this God and what He is doing.

[Anonymous No.5279635]

>>5279485
Out of the two of you, one of you certainly is a brainwashed hysterical child.

[Anonymous No.5279636]

>>5279613
>The like three christians who post exactly the same and jerk each other off every day with multiple threads

We get it. Can you just go back to whatever shithole you crawled here from?

[Anonymous No.5279639]

>>5279621
Thanks for leaving the thread, your contribution couldn't possibly get tinier anyway.
Leaving this thread will tell me that there is at least one person on /lit/ that feels like teaching other people while bringing absolutely nothing to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.5279641]

>>5279615
That does not follow at all, as God needs no reason to exist, and needs no reason to create a universe. Such a being has no needs as we know them.

[Anonymous No.5279642]

>>5279621
I'm not him but if you're getting this worked up over the fact that you're a delusional moron who believes in things that never happened I really hope you never come back.

[Anonymous No.5279646]

>>5279636
The Truth is the Truth; that people who know the Truth post in complementary ways demonstrates that they indeed know the Truth.

I'll give you a hint.

The Truth is a person.

[Anonymous No.5279648]

>>5279614
>The universe was created by God.

Again, you don't demonstrate this, you merely assert it. As long as you don't demonstrate it, I have no reason to believe it.

>"This theory posits", "This could have created", "It's not impossible" Speculation abounds.

Not really, this is the language that is used in science. The job of science is that you make models of reality that fit the data. These models aren't, and can never be proven. Models are either corroborated or falsified. This is taught in every class of philosophy of science.

>See the Law of Biogenesis.
Or any dictionary for that matter.

Again, dictionaries aren't the ultimate arbiters of truth, they specify what language labels usually mean. They have no scientific weight

>How do you figure?

No set definition has even been presented, no method of how this idea can be verified or falsified has even been presented, and no evidence has ever been presented in favor of this idea. Furthermore, none of the religious claims have been repeated by independent observers, nor are they in any way repeatable

[Anonymous No.5279650]

>>5279639
No, he just demonstrated that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Your attempts to be ignorant before God will fail, and you will be responsible for your willful ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[Anonymous No.5279652]

>>5279641
>as God needs no reason to exist

So his existence is essentially meaningless, and, by extension, so is yours?

[Anonymous No.5279654]

>>5279642
I have found that the delusional people are those who insist that events in history did not happen without their personal consent, contribution or observation.

[Anonymous No.5279656]

>>5279650
Nice ad hominem.
You are enlightened by your own blessing and I'm not, I get it.
Do you have anything intelligent to say?

[Anonymous No.5279662]

>>5279648
It's definitional. God is the title people give to the being whom they believe created the universe. If you think the universe came about by QM, then QM is your god. And it is a poor, cold, deaf and blind god who cares about you not at all.

If you believe allah created the universe, you call allah God.

If you believe YHWH created the universe, you call YHWH God.

There are billions of gods; only one of them created the universe, and therefore only one of them is worthy of worship and praise, and the source of true awe and wonder.

[Anonymous No.5279663]

>>5276337
That's your own fault, you shouldn't have expected anything different, post-modernism has no place in Christianity.

[Anonymous No.5279675]

>>5279652
Quite the opposite. His name is I Am, and His existence has always been, and will always be. He needs no reason to exist, and requires nothing, not even a creator, as He is eternal.

As He is a Creator, He created the universe, and when that universe was broken, He came down and fixed it. And He will eventually replace it, and it will be populated by people who are For Him.

I need not tell you what will happen to people who are Against Him, and you would call me a fearmonger to even try. You already know.

My existence is meaningful in one very clear way; my sins were meaningful enough for God to become human and be tortured to death to save me. If my sins are that meaningful, what was saved is even more so.

[Anonymous No.5279680]

>>5279662
>God is the title people give to the being whom they believe created the universe.

And why does it have to be a who? A what is much more likely, since you don't have to explain an intelligence

>If you think the universe came about by QM, then QM is your god.

No, because I don't pray to physics to grand me wishes

>There are billions of gods; only one of them created the universe, and therefore only one of them is worthy of worship and praise, and the source of true awe and wonder.

Again, your opinion. Your assertion, which you don't demonstrate

[Anonymous No.5279681]

>>5279656
Yes.

The very same "enlightenment" as you call it is just as available to you as it was to me. It is available to all people who bend the knee to Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He saves all who believe in Him, from whatever walk of life, from whatever hellhole they live in, rich, poor, black, white, yellow, Jew, Greek; it matters not.

Jesus will save all who ask Him to be saved, and once saved, the same Holy Spirit in me will be in you.

[Anonymous No.5279688]

>>5279654
>Het guys this impossible thing totally happened once ever and you better dogmatically believe in it despite there being no evidence

Okay.

[Anonymous No.5279689]

>>5279680
If you believe a non-intelligent being created this universe, you are free to do so. I do not have this much faith. I see intelligence as the product of a higher intelligence, not a complete lack of intelligence.

I do not pray to God to grant my wishes either. What He has already done for me surpasses me. When I reflect upon it, it overwhelms me. I would not have done what God did for me, and I am quite precious in my own eyes.

[Anonymous No.5279696]

>>5279688
The historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is abundant, and it is the best documented event in ancient human history. Maybe read some of these books that are being recommended to you. "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict" "Who Moved the Stone?" and of course "Cries of the Heart".

It is not from a lack of information that you intensely hate a being you have never met and claim not to believe in; it is from pain and anger.

[Anonymous No.5279698]

>>5279613
>Always so wonderful to find another brother in this place.
Thanks anon. The feeling is mutual.

> "Who Moved the Stone?" is another good book.
I have been meaning to get that book.
It was recommended in the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".

It's a good argument. The only logical conclusion is the resurrection occurred.
Unfortunately not everyone uses logic to determine their beliefs.

>>5279648
>>The universe was created by God.
>Again, you don't demonstrate this, you merely assert it. As long as you don't demonstrate it, I have no reason to believe it.

>These models aren't, and can never be proven.
you don't demonstrate this, you merely assert it. As long as you don't demonstrate it, I have no reason to believe it.
Have a dose of your own medicine.

>Again, dictionaries aren't the ultimate arbiters of truth
I agree, but in this case you are the one asserting that they are false.
You are also asserting that abiogenes can, and did occur.
you don't demonstrate this, you merely assert it. As long as you don't demonstrate it, I have no reason to believe it.

>No set definition has even been presented
I thought it had. see>>5279332

>no method of how this idea can be verified or falsified has even been presented
A circumstantial case can be made based on historical evidence.
see "Cold Case Christianity"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQmodO2quW0

No I'm not going to type it all out for you. Read the book, watch the video, or ignore this post.

>Furthermore, none of the religious claims have been repeated by independent observers, nor are they in any way repeatable

Do you deny every historical event?
No event in history can be repeated. The only way to verify the claims is to investigate the evidence.

[Anonymous No.5279704]

>>5279696
That's total bullshit and you're fully aware that there is absolutely no evidence of the resurrection beyond the bible.

[Anonymous No.5279718]

>>5279704
Even were I to accept your inference that somehow the highest and best authority that exists in the universe is somehow insufficient, there exists plenty of extra-biblical information regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ, including as mentioned above, the dramatic change of His disciples, the dramatic change of the Roman empire, and the current existence of christianity, which is nothing more than the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

I am not in the bible, but I am a witness that He is alive, that He is Love, that He is Joy, and, oddly enough, that He is young. He is better in all ways than the best people you have ever met in your entire lifetime, and He is waiting for you to turn to Him.

You will never regret it. Not once, not ever.

[Anonymous No.5279724]

>>5279689
>If you believe a non-intelligent being created this universe, you are free to do so. I do not have this much faith.

Neither do I, because so far there has been literally zero evidence that any form of intelligence did it

>I see intelligence as the product of a higher intelligence, not a complete lack of intelligence.

Intelligence evolved, just like everything else on our body. It evolved with the specific purpose of survival. For instance, our intelligence enables us to create tools, something other primates can't do or can only do to a certain extend. This gives us a unique advantage over them

>What He has already done for me surpasses me. When I reflect upon it, it overwhelms me. I would not have done what God did for me, and I am quite precious in my own eyes.

This proves otherwise. If God is so much more advanced, then why does he still us a fairly primitive punishment/reward dichotomy? Seems fairly undivine, if you ask me

[Anonymous No.5279729]

>>5279718
You realize the reason that you aren't pointing me to any actual name or contemporary biblical source to confirm your claim is because you're dramatically exaggerating and essentially entirely wrong, right? Yeah, you do. 10/10 troll? I think so.

[Anonymous No.5279739]

>>5279698
>Have a dose of your own medicine.

This is taught in every class of the philosophy of science. If you have a better method that can more accurately tell us about reality, I'm waiting

>You are also asserting that abiogenes can, and did occur.

No, I specifically said that abiogenesis deals with an unknown. Stop putting words in my mouth

>A circumstantial case can be made based on historical evidence.

We're not talking about a court case, we're talking about science.

>Do you deny every historical event?

I do if they describe events that break the known laws of physics. That would require a little bit more than just a statement that it happened. You'd also be required how they were broken

[Anonymous No.5279747]

>>5279718
>the dramatic change of His disciples, the dramatic change of the Roman empire, and the current existence of christianity, which is nothing more than the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

None of this demonstrates that holy men can survive their own death. It demonstrates that people can believe certain things and that empires can change their opinion on a certain religion if an emperor of that empire is converted

[Anonymous No.5279781]

>>5279724
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

And everything gave birth according to its kind.

Because He is greater than us in more of a way than we are greater than dirt.

[Anonymous No.5279797]

>>5279781
>In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

And why should I believe even a single word that's in the Bible?

>And everything gave birth according to its kind.

It did if you don't define what the word 'kind' means. My guess is that it means anything between a subspecies to kingdom

[Anonymous No.5279803]

>>5279729
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." - Flavius Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews. Chapter 3 paragraph 3

Read it for yourself
http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm

>>5279739
>This is taught in every class of the philosophy of science.
That was my mistake. I had meant that comment to be in reply to the notion of a multiverse.
We can not observe it, nor can we demonstrate it.
So by your own account you have no reason to believe it.

> No, I specifically said that abiogenesis deals with an unknown
I did not mean to upset you.
You claimed the dictionaries are false.
If this abiogenesis is unknown, how then can you know that the dictionaries are false?
Also why do you ignore the observable and repeatable demonstrations that spontaneous generation can not occur?

>We're not talking about a court case, we're talking about science.
We cannot scientifically investigate historical events using observation, or demonstration.
How else should we investigate historical claims?

>I do if they describe events that break the known laws of physics. That would require a little bit more than just a statement that it happened. You'd also be required how they were broken
We have much more than a statement, we have multiple statements from several sources.
We also have the actions of the apostles the confirm that at the very least they believed what they were saying.
Additionally we have no other logical explanation for the empty tomb, or for the actions of the apostles.

What plausible explanation do you give to explain why they did what they did?
Or why the Jews did not just present the body as proof that no resurrection occurred?

[Anonymous No.5279811]

>>5279797
You should only believe a single word of it if you indeed come to the understanding that it was inspired by God.

Do the work.

Prove the bible is false.

When you cannot, begin to understand that you have a choice to make, and limited time with which to make it.

[Anonymous No.5279825]

>>5279803
At least some of Josephus' records are known to have been tampered with. There are no records of the romans executing him or him wandering the country performing miracles. The only other thing you've got is a guy who made a bunch of shit up confirming christians have been considered a cult for millennia.

[Anonymous No.5279842]

>>5279825
What more can you ask for but that the accounts of Jesus Christ were recorded by His disciples, by eyewitnesses, and by Jewish, Roman and Greek historians?

[Anonymous No.5279848]

>>5279803

>He was [the] Christ.
>this is written by a very strict Jew

Yup, nothing fake about that

>We can not observe it, nor can we demonstrate it.

We can detect its effects in the form of gravitational waves

>If this abiogenesis is unknown, how then can you know that the dictionaries are false?

Because the dictionary is not a scientific journal?

>How else should we investigate historical claims?

Corroboration with other sources, and the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism, which all sciences assume

>We have much more than a statement, we have multiple statements from several sources.

And none of these were from outside of Christianity. We only have two sources on Jesus' existence, one of which is highly likely to be a fake

>We also have the actions of the apostles the confirm that at the very least they believed what they were saying.

And yet they didn't agree with each other. For instance, the gospel of Mark has two different endings

>Additionally we have no other logical explanation for the empty tomb

Tombs were for rich people only, so this is highly unlikely to have taken place

>What plausible explanation do you give to explain why they did what they did?

Paul invented most of it

>Or why the Jews did not just present the body as proof that no resurrection occurred?

Because most victims of crucifixion had their bodies eaten by stray dogs

[Anonymous No.5279850]

>>5279842
You mean four guys who waited 30 years to tell anyone and the one dude who lived way later and has forged records?

[Anonymous No.5279853]

>>5279811
>Prove the bible is false.

Why don't you prove that it's true first? If your best case for the veracity of the Bible is a negative proof fallacy, then its integrity should probably be questioned

[Anonymous No.5279855]

>>5279842
>and by Jewish, Roman and Greek historians?

Which?

[Anonymous No.5279870]

>>5276297

[Anonymous No.5279874]

>>5279850
You can believe that, if you want.

It's odd for me to find people who claim to be intelligent clinging to willful ignorance.

[Anonymous No.5279877]

>>5279853
Not at all. The proof has always been fulfilled prophecy; that the existence of the prophecy, and its fulfillment, demonstrate that the author could see the future.

The most clear is Daniel. On the very day Daniel prophesied that the Messiah would be cut off, Jesus entered Jerusalem on a colt.

Pinpoint accuracy. One certain day. Prophesied almost 600 years prior.

As the bible is about 35% prophecy, a study on prophecy will demonstrate the bible's veracity; that the author indeed knew the future, and told men, who wrote it down for you to read.

[Anonymous No.5279886]

>>5279855
Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Julius Africanus, Celcus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Galen.....

Honestly, /lit/. There is such a thing as Google.

[Anonymous No.5279909]

>>5279811
>Prove the bible is false.
That was exactly what Josh McDowell had set out to do.
He ended up converted to Christianity in the process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj2d2cW_2fc

The book he intended to be a refutation of Christianity, ended up being a book arguing the case for Christianity.

Most people who do not believe have never bothered to investigate it for themselves.

>>5279825
>There are no records of the romans executing him
"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome" - Tacitus, Annals 15.44

>>5279848
>We can detect its effects in the form of gravitational waves
Nope.
If there are other universes they are by definition separate from ours.
They can have no effect on us, nor can we of them.
I don't think you understand the concept.

>Because the dictionary is not a scientific journal?
Biogenesis is a law of science. Why do you disregard it?

>Corroboration with other sources, and the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism, which all sciences assume
Science assumes naturalism?
Well there is your problem.
This is known as the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.

>And none of these were from outside of Christianity. We only have two sources on Jesus' existence, one of which is highly likely to be a fake

Not so see above.
Also
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

>And yet they didn't agree with each other
This topic is discussed in the book "Cold Case Christianity"
Jim Wallace a former homicide detective he was quite experienced in testimony.
According to him if you have several witnesses that say exactly the same thing, you have evidence of collusion.
Because different people remember things from different perspectives, and will therefore have slightly different accounts of what has happened.
The Gospel accounts are exactly what one would expect to find from honest witnesses.

>Tombs were for rich people only, so this is highly unlikely to have taken place
>Paul invented most of it

So you believe that the apostles made up the story, and knew it was a lie, and also chose to give up their earthly possessions to go and die for a lie they made up?
How is that logical?
I think you too have missed the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBLdHiaFYwk
How could anyone believe such an absurd notion?

>>5279870
I thought this was a board full of people who liked to read.

[Anonymous No.5279924]

>>5279909
>mfw if christianity is true I have blasphemed so much and explicitly there is probably nothing I can ever do about it

[Anonymous No.5279964]

>>5279924
It's already forgiven.

If you confess with your mouth, that is to say out loud, that Jesus is LORD, and believe in your heart, the very center of your being, that God raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved.

This is a gift God offers to all who believe in Jesus.

If you are reading this, it is not too late.

[Anonymous No.5279967]

>>5279924
If Christianity is true, then Jesus, one of the raddest dudes ever to live, is the supreme God of all creation. Just don't be an asshole and you'll probably be fine.

[Anonymous No.5279980]

>>5279909
>Biogenesis is a law of science. Why do you disregard it?

Falsifiability is one of the pillars of science. If tomorrow, laws are falsified, they're discarded

>Science assumes naturalism?
Scientists have no reason not to

>http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
>>We only have two sources on Jesus' existence, one of which is highly likely to be a fake

>Jim Wallace a former homicide detective he was quite experienced in testimony.

Science =! a court case

>So you believe that the apostles made up the story, and knew it was a lie, and also chose to give up their earthly possessions to go and die for a lie they made up?

No, I believe that Paul wrote down things about them they never said

[Anonymous No.5279983]

>>5279964
I know christians aren't muslims but isn't my repeatedly posting here (admittedly maybe as one of you said "from pain and anger") that christ definitely did not exist and YHVH is a torturous asshole some sort of condemned "spreading of corruption in the land"? Can you point me to verses that back up what you are claiming?

[Anonymous No.5279990]

>>5279980
Yes, science is always wrong.
Yes, science makes poor assumptions that turn out to be always wrong.
Yes, evidence can be used in courts and in the court of public opinion.
Yes, you believe Paul did that without any evidence of him doing so whatsoever, and missing the most obvious question about the Apostle Paul, ever asked:

How did Paul, who was there 20 years after Jesus rose from the dead, consenting to the murder of Stephen, know more about Jesus than all of the other apostles combined?

[Anonymous No.5279999]

>>5279924
Your sins can be forgiven.
That is the good news of the Gospel.

God wants to forgive you.

All that is required of you is that you repent of your sins, and believe the Gospel.

Acts 2:36-39
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

These men were the very ones whom crucified Jesus.
When they asked "what shall we do?"
The answer was given Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Note this is a spiritual baptism. Water baptism is a good thing, but it cannot save you from sin.

If the men who killed Jesus can be forgiven so can you.

>>5279964
Second this.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

>>5279967
Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[Anonymous No.5280000]

>>5279983
Mark 3: 28 Amen I say to you, that all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and the blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme:

[Anonymous No.5280057]

>>5279980
>Falsifiability is one of the pillars of science. If tomorrow, laws are falsified, they're discarded
Biogenesis has never once been falsified.

>Scientists have no reason not to
It is not logical to assume the conclusion.

>Science =! a court case
I agree, but since we can not scientifically examine historical events other methods must be used to determine whether or not those events happened.

>No, I believe that Paul wrote down things about them they never said
What evidence do you have to support that belief?

[Anonymous No.5280094]

>>5275059

Plantinga.

[Anonymous No.5280253]

>>5278918
>because they think that is what God believes?
"Manipulating people's own beliefs similarly affected their estimates of God's beliefs"

how would you distinguish a 'lunatic' who claims he is god from a believer whos beliefs about gods beliefs just so happen to be indistinguishable from his own?

its pretty clear that believers think that they are god, even if they won't admit it,

[Anonymous No.5280563]

>>5279877

you should know that most of the old testament prophecies were fulfilled in the old testament, usually within the same books that they were made, Daniel is a perfect example

not to mention, a lot of people believe Daniel is a completely fabricated book, written centuries after it claims to be written, by somebody other than is claimed to be the author. it may have been entirely fabricated to support christianity

not to mention, the gospels were written with the prophecies available to be read, it is no amazing feat that some of them should be fulfilled in the new testament

[Anonymous No.5280583]

so much apologetics bullshit in this thread, outright lies and foolish arguments. one particularly ridiculous argument is the idea that the Jews could simply have reproduced Jesus' body to prove he didnt resurrect

crucified bodies become unrecognizable within a month at most, certainly for the purposes of proving a religion wrong

there are no good apologetics books because christianity is not justified by evidence, if you don't have the holy spirit in you, you can't believe, and if you do, you can believe regardless of what you know

[Anonymous No.5280592]

>>5280253
Is not the goal of Christianity to become more Christlike?

[Anonymous No.5280599]

>>5280563

not to mention, most of the prophecies are something that are hardly prophecies at all, like that the messiah will have his feet washed or something, that's no prediction, anybody couldve guessed that would happen from the culture

[Anonymous No.5280620]

>>5280599
Isaiah 53
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


Yeah your right that could have been anyone.