Apologetics Thread!!!

PDN · 27-10-2009 05:56PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never understood why some christians claim that the resurrection of Jesus as written in the bible is the most plausibly true depiction of events. It always seemed to be counter intuitive when you consider that christians are supposed to consider their faith to be their greatest ally.

'Greatest ally'? Where on earth do you get your ideas about Christianity?

If the resurrection of Jesus is the most plausible explanation, then it requires the least faith to believe in.

Way to go, build yourself a strawman.

Christians don't value things on the grounds that they are difficult to believe. If you're going to address the topic of the thread (apologetics) then its probably better to do so without such antics.

PDN · 27-10-2009 06:07PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I sure do, but that is rather off topic. Still, I try to be polite when it comes to answering direct questions.

Yes. The laws of science are internally consistent. There is no supernatural influence.

That wasn't what I asked you. You claimed to have empirical evidence. So far you haven't come up with any.

However, if I wish, I can claim that the laws of science in our universe are controlled by a bunch of rogue magicians from an alternate universe called Zorg.

You can indeed make such a claim. And, while I wouldn't share your belief in the Zorgians, I wouldn't make the false claim that I possess empirical evidence to disprove your theory.

To move beyond the level of sophistry, I think the onus is on you to provide empirical evidence that the Supernatural Being theory is true, rather on me to "prove" that it is false.

No, you can use that approach on the OP, if you want, since he asked for a debate on apolgetics.

But, since you insist on addressing this to me by using the quote function, the onus is on the person who claims to possess empirical evidence - and that would be you.

Mark Hamill · 27-10-2009 07:48PM

PDN wrote: »

'Greatest ally'? Where on earth do you get your ideas about Christianity?

"Greatest ally" may be an odd way to put it, but are you saying faith is of no or little importance to christianity? I thought it was faith alone that guaranteed your entrance into heaven?

PDN wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

If the resurrection of Jesus is the most plausible explanation, then it requires the least faith to believe in.

Way to go, build yourself a strawman.

Maybe you just forgot to leave in the rest of my post where you see a strawman, but that sentence is most definitely not a strawman.

PDN wrote: »

Christians don't value things on the grounds that they are difficult to believe. If you're going to address the topic of the thread (apologetics) then its probably better to do so without such antics.

Christians may not value things based on how hard they are to believe, but given the knee jerk posting in terms of "How plausible is the resurrection", many christians certainly want to claim that the resurrection is easy to believe. My point, however, was that the resurrection is supposed to be implausable, thats the point. If its so easy to believe that god would die for our sins, then it kind of makes the act unsurprising and ordinary, almost as if you would expect god to send Jesus to die for our sins.
Overall, my point is that it shouldn't matter. If christians where supposed to believe in the resurrection because the witness testamonies in the bible are perfect forms of evidence then what christians would have would be called facts, not faith.

BrianCalgary · 27-10-2009 08:26PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Overall, my point is that it shouldn't matter. If christians where supposed to believe in the resurrection because the witness testamonies in the bible are perfect forms of evidence then what christians would have would be called facts, not faith.

A Christians Faith is not on whether or not the resurrection occured, as there were enough witnesses to show that it did indeed occur.

The faith is in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. Faith in Him for our redemption, faith in him to bring us back into right relationship with God.

Zombrex · 27-10-2009 09:19PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

A Christians Faith is not on whether or not the resurrection occured, as there were enough witnesses to show that it did indeed occur.

The faith is in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. Faith in Him for our redemption, faith in him to bring us back into right relationship with God.

Aren't all those confirmed though by the resurrection? Or can you believe the resurrection happened as a fact yet still not have faith (trust?) in the redeeming work of Jesus, in your redemption?

Doesn't this all hinge on faith in the resurrection?

Zombrex · 27-10-2009 09:26PM

PDN wrote: »

Really, so you have empirical evidence that the laws of nature are not controlled by, or under the influence of, a supernatural being?

He didn't say that. He said all empirical evidence to the contrary.

No scientist in the history of science has ever observed in any experiment any established scientific law being bent or broken.

That doesn't prove it doesn't happen, but the statement still stands because it is about weighing up evidence on one side and evidence on the other.

The only evidence ever collected supports the idea that the laws of physics are not manipulated by an intelligence. And there has never been a single shred of evidence indicating they are.

chozometroid · 27-10-2009 10:49PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Greatest ally" may be an odd way to put it, but are you saying faith is of no or little importance to christianity? I thought it was faith alone that guaranteed your entrance into heaven?

Maybe you just forgot to leave in the rest of my post where you see a strawman, but that sentence is most definitely not a strawman.

Christians may not value things based on how hard they are to believe, but given the knee jerk posting in terms of "How plausible is the resurrection", many christians certainly want to claim that the resurrection is easy to believe. My point, however, was that the resurrection is supposed to be implausable, thats the point. If its so easy to believe that god would die for our sins, then it kind of makes the act unsurprising and ordinary, almost as if you would expect god to send Jesus to die for our sins.
Overall, my point is that it shouldn't matter. If christians where supposed to believe in the resurrection because the witness testamonies in the bible are perfect forms of evidence then what christians would have would be called facts, not faith.

Faith does not require the absence of fact. I think you have the wrong notion of faith. Faith is trust in God. Faith is believing in God's promises. Faith is saying, "here I am, do what you will." Faith is taking the hard road, knowing you are not alone. Faith is having assurance in an outcome, as a result of your trust in God, even when you think it's impossible.

Also, who says the resurrection "is supposed to be implausible?"
Or, why does it have to be "ordinary" if it's easy to believe?

Jesus did what He said He would do, and His death and resurrection are what tie the entire Bible together.
Jesus Christ is the lamb slain for the sins of mankind. Jesus became the prototype for a new type of man, and His resurrection assured us of this new life ahead.
Jesus came to die for man, and while we shouldn't take it for granted, it is not "unexpected." Jesus also had to overcome death, which is why He had to rise again and not just die for us.
It is because of these things that we find the resurrection not just believable, but the defining moment in Earth's history. I should go a bit more in-depth on this, but I'm tired...:o

1 Cor. 15:22, 45
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. . . .
45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Romans 5:12-21 KJV
The Old Testament prophesied about the Messiah's sacrifice:
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. (Isaiah 53:5)

Overheal · 27-10-2009 10:51PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

A Christians Faith is not on whether or not the resurrection occured, as there were enough witnesses to show that it did indeed occur.

From my reading of this thread, there were no direct witnesses of this Resurrection.

Again though, if there are enough witnesses please provide through historical method as many sources as you are able, which confirm the resurrection.

chozometroid · 27-10-2009 11:30PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

And clearly the answer is no. Not that it couldn't or wouldn't, but rather why would it grant these attributes solely to some remarkable apes ?

I mean if you look at the animal kingdom (and we're limiting ourselves severely here in assuming this lump of rock orbiting a star is the sole location of life in a otherwise vast universe) similar emotions have been attributed to other species, and not all of them have been of the ape family.
We're not that unique as it turns out.

Are they all created in 'his image'? By your definition they are. Which is something I can accept much easier than the idea that we're 'special' if I'm to be honest.

I don't think the absence of all God-like traits is required for something to be NOT made in God's image.

Let's say God is immaterial, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, rational, intelligent, and has free will, then He decides to create something "in His image."
He creates something that is loving, rational, intelligent, and also physical, but is still made after His image.
Now another creature God creates may share most of the same attributes, but they are not the same. There is something about man that separates him from other creatures. Perhaps it is free will, or level of intelligence, or some other trait that God considered to be what qualifies us, but most definitely it is our capactity to actually reflect God's character. We usually fail miserably, but we are His representatives nonetheless.

For God to display what appears to be something similar to human personality, it only shows that He created beings that also have a personality. It does not mean God is at our level, or the level of a beast that also exhibits emotions. If you propose that God should not have human emotions at all, why is that? Also, how would He interact with a created being who does have emotions? Did God create a feeling that He could not experience Himself?

Perhaps God does not have emotions at all, but they are portrayed to help us understand His actions on a level we can understand. Or maybe He also experiences emotions that we cannot comprehend. I don't see how the presence of human-understandable behavior from God makes Him less believable. There are a lot of things about God that we don't understand at all, like omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience(yes, these three you could say are extensions of qualities we do know about), "alpha and omega," and the Trinity.

Turtwig · 28-10-2009 12:16AM

chozometroid wrote: »

Perhaps God does not have emotions at all, but they are portrayed to help us understand His actions on a level we can understand. Or maybe He also experiences emotions that we cannot comprehend. I don't see how the presence of human-understandable behavior from God makes Him less believable. There are a lot of things about God that we don't understand at all, like omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience(yes, these three you could say are extensions of qualities we do know about), "alpha and omega," and the Trinity.

In bit of a hurry so I'm going to keep this brief:

We're not the only rational animals on Earth.

God is omniscient and omnipotent so logic would suggest to me that a Godlike being who knows everything about something could easily emulate that something, exactly like it was the real thing - in other words God may not have emotions but there is nothing to say He cannot know how to express them the same or better than a Human Being can.

Edit - Apologies if someone already mentioned this

chozometroid · 28-10-2009 12:24AM

Malty_T wrote: »

In bit of a hurry so I'm going to keep this brief:

We're not the only rational animals on Earth.

God is omniscient and omnipotent so logic would suggest to me that a Godlike being who knows everything about something could easily emulate that something, exactly like it was the real thing - in other words God may not have emotions but there is nothing to say He cannot know how to express them the same or better than a Human Being can.

Edit - Apologies if someone already mentioned this

I kind of did....but not in those words.

Fanny Cradock · 28-10-2009 02:04AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sceptics of the day didn't believe in resurrection either - once you crossed the river Styx or wherever that was pretty much it - so I guess you are in good company. But yours is not an entirely fair demand to place on the Christian, nor is your ending conclusion necessarily true.

The resurrection is a historical claim, not specifically a scientific one. Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a unique event. How you scientifically test the veracity of this supposed event is beyond me. Furthermore, I think it rather disingenuous to reduce the biblical accounts - and all the background historicity, psychology and whatever else - to consisting of "dubious eyewitness accounts" etc. It seems like nothing more than a biased personal proclamation, rather than a historical claim.

That miracles do occur is obviously essential to certain events described in the bible. These could sometimes be thought of as miracles of timing or location - in other words, miracles that don't involve the interruption of the laws of nature (as best we understand them). However, the resurrection is indeed believed to be a miracle that can only be understood as standing over against our eternally provisional knowledge of how the universe works or ought work. But then again, with God (or the concept of him), it is understood that we are dealing with an omnipotent Being outside the universe - the creator of all things, including laws. So the idea that the universe goes on exactly as it pleases until God decides to do something isn't conceptually a problem for some. In this regard, science is evidence against God in the same way that it is evidence for his existence. In other words, despite all of the rhetoric from some, science doesn't have a great deal of concrete things to say about God.

Fanny Cradock · 28-10-2009 02:11AM

Overheal wrote: »

From my reading of this thread, there were no direct witnesses of this Resurrection.

Again though, if there are enough witnesses please provide through historical method as many sources as you are able, which confirm the resurrection.

I'm curious about the following. If there were eye-witness accounts and extra-biblical sources that attested to the resurrection (and why the later weren't found in the bible would make an interesting question) what difference would it make to you?

It seems to me that it's not necessarily the evidence (or lack of) that is the problem. Presumably some people just don't believe that resurrection is possible - no matter what evidence is presented.

chozometroid · 28-10-2009 02:30AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious about the following. If there were eye-witness accounts and extra-biblical sources that attested to the resurrection (and why the later weren't found in the bible would make an interesting question) what difference would it make to you?

It seems to me that it's not necessarily the evidence (or lack of) that is the problem. Presumably some people just don't believe that resurrection is possible - no matter what evidence is presented.

Yep, they would say Jesus didn't really die(who pronounced Him dead?, was He really placed in the tomb?, etc) or say everyone was fooled or just interpreted the event the wrong way.
It would still be ancient history and there would be no reason to believe someone was actually resurrected, because it never happens and can't happen, ever.

monosharp · 28-10-2009 03:01AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious about the following. If there were eye-witness accounts and extra-biblical sources that attested to the resurrection (and why the later weren't found in the bible would make an interesting question) what difference would it make to you?

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased.

All these things would go a long way towards me accepting that people 'thought' a resurrection event took place.

Of course it goes nowhere near proving it but it would show that it wasn't a complete fabrication made up by religious fundamentalists.

It seems to me that it's not necessarily the evidence (or lack of) that is the problem. Presumably some people just don't believe that resurrection is possible - no matter what evidence is presented.

For me to 'believe' a supernatural event took place I would have to be a witness before I even took it seriously. And thats not even saying I would believe it if witnessed with my own eyes because human perception is so flawed. I would however be very open to the idea.

Right now the lack of evidence tells me that not only did a resurrection event not take place but its all very likely a complete fabrication and that people didn't even 'think' a resurrection event took place.

Fanny Cradock · 28-10-2009 04:51AM

monosharp wrote: »

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased.

All these things would go a long way towards me accepting that people 'thought' a resurrection event took place.

Of course it goes nowhere near proving it but it would show that it wasn't a complete fabrication made up by religious fundamentalists.

For me to 'believe' a supernatural event took place I would have to be a witness before I even took it seriously. And thats not even saying I would believe it if witnessed with my own eyes because human perception is so flawed. I would however be very open to the idea.

Right now the lack of evidence tells me that not only did a resurrection event not take place but its all very likely a complete fabrication and that people didn't even 'think' a resurrection event took place.

It's interesting that you so readily display some of the same bias that you criticise.

Without meaning to get into another debate about the existing evidence, I wonder what you feel would constitute an independent source for the resurrection? Do you expect to find an account of the resurrection that corroborates the story but the author then goes on their merry way unchanged? Presumably, if the person reporting testified that there really was a resurrection, they would become a believer, and, by your criteria, a source that isn't sufficiently credible.

Overheal · 28-10-2009 05:13AM

chozometroid wrote: »

Yep, they would say Jesus didn't really die(who pronounced Him dead?, was He really placed in the tomb?, etc) or say everyone was fooled or just interpreted the event the wrong way.
It would still be ancient history and there would be no reason to believe someone was actually resurrected, because it never happens and can't happen, ever.

Honestly give some credit. If history unfolded differently; if there was more to prove the resurrection as a historical fact with empirical evidence, i dont think we'd be having this discussion or any derivative of it, because we would already know the answer so there would be no point in fractured theological debate.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1l4h4_the-final-exammormons-are-the-answe_news

monosharp · 28-10-2009 06:24AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's interesting that you so readily display some of the same bias that you criticise.

Oh ? And how is that ?

Without meaning to get into another debate about the existing evidence, I wonder what you feel would constitute an independent source for the resurrection? Do you expect to find an account of the resurrection that corroborates the story but the author then goes on their merry way unchanged?

I think your mixing up witness and source.

An independent source for the resurrection would be;

Recording of the event in independent writings, by anyone of the period who seen/heard the story who was not part of the religion. e.g. I'm sure a resurrected Christ would have been big news yet not a single document exists from the actual period talking about it. Including your gospels which were written much later.

e.g > We have several independent sources which state Caesar as crossing the Rubicon and starting a Roman civil war. We don't think all these sources witnessed the event in question but they are independent writings at the same time i.e > Cicero didn't copy the information off of Suetonius.

Presumably, if the person reporting testified that there really was a resurrection, they would become a believer, and, by your criteria, a source that isn't sufficiently credible.

Four things.

First, you are purposely confusing source with witness. A source can be any writer at the time regardless of whether they 'witnessed' the resurrection or not.

Second, on direct witnesses, who are you to say they would become a believer or not ? They might have been frightened to see a dead man walking and headed for the nearest temple to pray to god to save them from the walking dead.

It could have been a roman soldier who witnessed it, it could have been a jewish rabbi, it could have been me. And I guarantee you even if I did see a dead guy walking my first thoughts would not be to kneel in front of him and ask for forgiveness.

Third, they are not my criteria, they are the criteria used by historians the world over to rate accuracy of all historical information we have about anything or anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Fourth, I am not asking for proof of the resurrection. I am asking for proof that people thought such an event took place at that time in that location.

Rev Hellfire · 28-10-2009 10:57AM

chozometroid wrote: »

Now another creature God creates may share most of the same attributes, but they are not the same. There is something about man that separates him from other creatures. Perhaps it is free will, or level of intelligence, or some other trait that God considered to be what qualifies us, but most definitely it is our capactity to actually reflect God's character.

Well free-will is hardly limited to human, as is intelligence, as for the this vague notion that what makes us special is been able to think about god(s) etc, that's just an extension of been self aware. Also attributes to other animals here.

Our 'special' place in creation really comes down to it makes us feel warm and fuzzy to think we're the centre of things, when clearly in a universe which on the scales of probability has life elsewhere is a total nonsense.

chozometroid wrote: »

If you propose that God should not have human emotions at all, why is that? Also, how would He interact with a created being who does have emotions? Did God create a feeling that He could not experience Himself?

The basic problem here is that you attribute the motivations which you experience to it, its not to say that perhaps such a entity could not have such emotions. But rather its motivations would be so totally and completely alien to us that a comparison is largely irrelevant.

From what I can see can see people basically assume because this is the way I think, it follows to reason it's also the way a god would think.

If you look at the gods which the Greeks worshipped they where not much more than people with additional tricks. The god proposed by the major religions hasn't really evolved past that point, other than moving from a mountain top to another incorporeal realm.

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't see how the presence of human-understandable behavior from God makes Him less believable.

I'm not arguing about if it exists, but rather if it exists logic dictates it would be nothing like the earth-bound caricature presented.
That's the leap I can't make, its just so obviously wrong.

Mark Hamill · 28-10-2009 12:17PM

chozometroid wrote: »

Faith does not require the absence of fact. I think you have the wrong notion of faith. Faith is trust in God. Faith is believing in God's promises. Faith is saying, "here I am, do what you will." Faith is taking the hard road, knowing you are not alone. Faith is having assurance in an outcome, as a result of your trust in God, even when you think it's impossible.

But faith is a belief in something not resting on logical proof or material evidence. The more facts you have, the less faith you need to believe something.

chozometroid wrote: »

Also, who says the resurrection "is supposed to be implausible?"

Is it not implausible that god would deem humanity worthy to send his only son to die for our sins? Or is it not implausible that a human can die and come back to life 3 days later.

chozometroid wrote: »

Or, why does it have to be "ordinary" if it's easy to believe?

If its easy to believe that god would send his only son to die for our sins, then it almost makes it seem like that was the only logical course of action for god to take, that no other action was even possible.

chozometroid wrote: »

Jesus did what He said He would do, and His death and resurrection are what tie the entire Bible together.
Jesus Christ is the lamb slain for the sins of mankind. Jesus became the prototype for a new type of man, and His resurrection assured us of this new life ahead.
Jesus came to die for man, and while we shouldn't take it for granted, it is not "unexpected." Jesus also had to overcome death, which is why He had to rise again and not just die for us.
It is because of these things that we find the resurrection not just believable, but the defining moment in Earth's history. I should go a bit more in-depth on this, but I'm tired...:o

So you are saying that you find the resurrection believeable because you would expect for Jesus to come and die for our sins? Even if you do automatically expect Jesus to die for our sins, what bearing does that have on plausibility?

PDN · 28-10-2009 12:26PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But faith is a belief in something not resting on logical proof or material evidence. The more facts you have, the less faith you need to believe something.

No, Christian faith is placing one's trust in Christ based on the available evidence. It recognises that there is not 100% proof, but is based on evidence and data nevertheless.

The kind of 'blind faith' you refer to doesn't generally exist in Christianity. The only times I encounter it, either in church life or online, is in the imaginations of atheists and strawmen.

Is it not implausible that god would deem humanity worthy to send his only son to die for our sins? Or is it not implausible that a human can die and come back to life 3 days later.

I would find it very implausible. What I do find plausible is the Bible's assertion that God sent His Son to die for a human race that was utterly unworthy.

If you accept the possibility of an omnipotent God, then someone coming back to life hardly seems implausible.

If its easy to believe that god would send his only son to die for our sins, then it almost makes it seem like that was the only logical course of action for god to take, that no other action was even possible.

I fail to follow your logic here.

Plenty of things are easy to believe, but it does not follow that they are therefore inevitable. God could just as easily have chosen to let the human race receive what it deserved, and therefore not to have sent His Son.

Zombrex · 28-10-2009 12:59PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Furthermore, I think it rather disingenuous to reduce the biblical accounts - and all the background historicity, psychology and whatever else - to consisting of "dubious eyewitness accounts" etc. It seems like nothing more than a biased personal proclamation, rather than a historical claim.

Given that he explained why they are dubious eyewitness account I hardly think it is biased personal proclamation. You might disagree with him, but that is a different matter.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But then again, with God (or the concept of him), it is understood that we are dealing with an omnipotent Being outside the universe - the creator of all things, including laws. So the idea that the universe goes on exactly as it pleases until God decides to do something isn't conceptually a problem for some. In this regard, science is evidence against God in the same way that it is evidence for his existence. In other words, despite all of the rhetoric from some, science doesn't have a great deal of concrete things to say about God.

But do you admit that it is necessary to believe the Christian god exists in the first place in order to make the resurrection a plausible event? That claims of eye witnesses alone do not make a supernatural event plausible (if they did then surely we would be expected to believe any supernatural event someone claims to have witnessed)

Zombrex · 28-10-2009 01:04PM

PDN wrote: »

If you accept the possibility of an omnipotent God, then someone coming back to life hardly seems implausible.

If you accept the possibility of an omnipotent god then doesn't that make everything plausible? Every supernatural claim, witnessed or other wise.

From the point of view of this thread, a thread on Christian apologetics, what makes the Christian claim of resurrection more believable than any other supernatural claim.

After all they can't be all true, can they?

Mark Hamill · 28-10-2009 01:09PM

PDN wrote: »

No, Christian faith is placing one's trust in Christ based on the available evidence. It recognises that there is not 100% proof, but is based on evidence and data nevertheless.

The kind of 'blind faith' you refer to doesn't generally exist in Christianity. The only times I encounter it, either in church life or online, is in the imaginations of atheists and strawmen.

I never said anything about blind faith, your claim is the strawman. I said that you show stronger faith if there is less available evidence and seeing as faith is incredibly important to christians, then I dont see why some christains are so adamant that the resurrection is immenently plausible. Its automatically more plausible that body doubles were used to fake the resurrection as body doubles is humanly possible and the resurrection requires a divine action used to wash away the esins of humanity. However it shouldn't matter to the christian that the resurrection is less possible, if they truely have faith.

PDN wrote: »

I would find it very implausible. What I do find plausible is the Bible's assertion that God sent His Son to die for a human race that was utterly unworthy.

If we are utterly unworthy then how is it plausible? If its plausible then we must be, at least in part, worthy. If we are utterly unworthy then why would we get what we need?

PDN wrote: »

If you accept the possibility of an omnipotent God, then someone coming back to life hardly seems implausible.

But given that humans can fake the resurrection using body doubles without any divine intervention, and that the resurrection, if divinely enacted, was done to wash our sins away even though we dont deserve our sins washed away then the body double idea has to be more plausible than the resurrection. If we truley didnt deserve our sins to be washed away and that the act was an incredible showing of mercy from god, then it must be implausible.

PDN wrote: »

I fail to follow your logic here.

Plenty of things are easy to believe, but it does not follow that they are therefore inevitable. God could just as easily have chosen to let the human race receive what it deserved, and therefore not to have sent His Son.

Is that not what makes the resurrection so implausible though? That we as a race deserved eternal punishment but god in his infinite mercy chose to send his son to die for our sins. If its not entirely implausible that god would forgive us our sins, then would that make our sins largely inconsequential, it didn't matter that we are sinful because its so plausible that god will forgive our sins anyway?

PDN · 28-10-2009 02:09PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never said anything about blind faith, your claim is the strawman.

Your claim was that faith is "a belief in something not resting on logical proof or material evidence". That is untrue. Faith is based on evidence, including material evidence.

I said that you show stronger faith if there is less available evidence and seeing as faith is incredibly important to christians, then I dont see why some christains are so adamant that the resurrection is immenently plausible.

Faith in what is true is important to Christians. To have strong faith in something that is untrue is considered by Christians to be folly.

Its automatically more plausible that body doubles were used to fake the resurrection as body doubles is humanly possible and the resurrection requires a divine action used to wash away the esins of humanity.

Automatically to you, maybe, with your presuppositions, but not to most people.

Btw, while Christians believe that the resurrection was a divine action, it does not require any connection to sins being washed away.

However it shouldn't matter to the christian that the resurrection is less possible, if they truely have faith.

The issue is not what is 'less possible' but rather what is plausible. The most possible scenario is not always the most plausible. I think you are confusing two separate concepts.

What actually matters to the Christian is whether the resurrection is true or not.

If we are utterly unworthy then how is it plausible? If its plausible then we must be, at least in part, worthy. If we are utterly unworthy then why would we get what we need?

It's called 'grace' and is one of the most fundamental aspects of Christianity. It refers to the fact that God, in His mercy, gives us blessings that we do not deserve in the slightest.

Just a suggestion, but it might help to familiarise yourself with some of the basic concepts of Christianity in order to participate in a discussion on apologetics?

Is that not what makes the resurrection so implausible though? That we as a race deserved eternal punishment but god in his infinite mercy chose to send his son to die for our sins. If its not entirely implausible that god would forgive us our sins, then would that make our sins largely inconsequential, it didn't matter that we are sinful because its so plausible that god will forgive our sins anyway?

You could use the same kind of "logic" to argue that the death penalty (and even the murder for which the death penalty was applied) is largely inconsequential since it's not entirely implausible that the governor will issue a pardon.

BrianCalgary · 28-10-2009 03:48PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

A Christians Faith is not on whether or not the resurrection occured, as there were enough witnesses to show that it did indeed occur.

The faith is in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. Faith in Him for our redemption, faith in him to bring us back into right relationship with God.

1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Mark Hamill · 28-10-2009 07:56PM

PDN wrote: »

Your claim was that faith is "a belief in something not resting on logical proof or material evidence". That is untrue. Faith is based on evidence, including material evidence.

But not relying on physical evidence, thats what makes it "faith" and not "fact". Dont get me wrong, of course there is some evidence, there has to be something that points in the direction of what you have faith in, otherwise you would never even consider it. But there is an undeniable gap in itemjs of faith, something you need to make that "leap of faith" over.

PDN wrote: »

Faith in what is true is important to Christians. To have strong faith in something that is untrue is considered by Christians to be folly.

But how do you determine what you believe to be true is true? Dont you have to take some things on faith in christianity?

PDN wrote: »

Automatically to you, maybe, with your presuppositions, but not to most people.

My only presupposition is that naturally possible actions are more plausible than supernatural actions. Is that not reasonable, given that almost every single supernatural action from dead religions are explained in such a way?

PDN wrote: »

Btw, while Christians believe that the resurrection was a divine action, it does not require any connection to sins being washed away.

Sorry, poor punctuation, the end of my sentence should read "the resurrection requires a divine action, which washed away the sins of humanity".

PDN wrote: »

The issue is not what is 'less possible' but rather what is plausible. The most possible scenario is not always the most plausible. I think you are confusing two separate concepts.

I should have said plausible there, sorry

.

PDN wrote: »

What actually matters to the Christian is whether the resurrection is true or not.

And wether it is true or not does not rest on its plausibilities, however, as I originally said, some christians have the knee jerk reaction of declaring that it is evidently the most plausible explanation, because they actually have little faith in what they believe and want it to seem an obvious fact, as opposed to an item of faith, which it is.

PDN wrote: »

It's called 'grace' and is one of the most fundamental aspects of Christianity. It refers to the fact that God, in His mercy, gives us blessings that we do not deserve in the slightest.

Just a suggestion, but it might help to familiarise yourself with some of the basic concepts of Christianity in order to participate in a discussion on apologetics?

I know what grace is, its another word for the act of mercy that god destows upon a humanity who dont deserve it, I did say this and your repsonse still does not deal with my point. Grace means that god gives us mercy even though we dont deserve in the slightest, but how plausible is it that god would give us something we dont deserve? What does he gain from it? Is he subject to "Grace"? Is it something he has no choice but to do?

PDN wrote: »

You could use the same kind of "logic" to argue that the death penalty (and even the murder for which the death penalty was applied) is largely inconsequential since it's not entirely implausible that the governor will issue a pardon.

Yes, thats my point. If its plausible that god will forgive us for our sins even though we dont deserve it, thus making the sins largely inconsequential (doesn't matter what you do, as you'll be forgiven regardless), then it would plausible for a governor to issue a pardon for a murderer who doesn't deserve it, thus making the murder inconsequential (to the murderer anyway).

chozometroid · 28-10-2009 11:42PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Well free-will is hardly limited to human, as is intelligence, as for the this vague notion that what makes us special is been able to think about god(s) etc, that's just an extension of been self aware. Also attributes to other animals here.

Not sure what your point is here or the following:

Our 'special' place in creation really comes down to it makes us feel warm and fuzzy to think we're the centre of things, when clearly in a universe which on the scales of probability has life elsewhere is a total nonsense.

Of course if you don't believe in God then there is no reason to believe we are special. Also, us being special because we are made in His image is not being used as some sort of evidence for God, so I'm not sure what you're on about.

The basic problem here is that you attribute the motivations which you experience to it, its not to say that perhaps such a entity could not have such emotions. But rather its motivations would be so totally and completely alien to us that a comparison is largely irrelevant.

I don't attribute motivations that I experience to God, because I'm sure His ways are beyond our understanding. I'm not sure how what you are saying here says anything against the idea that God has motivations which appear comprehensible to us humans.
Anyways, considering that you don't know anything about this entity, your idea about it's motivations are pretty pointless.

From what I can see can see people basically assume because this is the way I think, it follows to reason it's also the way a god would think.

Wrong.

If you look at the gods which the Greeks worshipped they where not much more than people with additional tricks. The god proposed by the major religions hasn't really evolved past that point, other than moving from a mountain top to another incorporeal realm.

Well, God and Satan both existed before those other gods were proposed.
Could you share with me the earliest historical evidence for a god worshipped by man?

I'm not arguing about if it exists, but rather if it exists logic dictates it would be nothing like the earth-bound caricature presented.
That's the leap I can't make, its just so obviously wrong.

Well, since we don't have a lot of examples to choose from regarding entities that create other lifeforms, it's hard to guess how the creation and creator would compare with one another.
When we create "life" using drawings, clay, programs, etc, don't the lifeforms reflect a bit of our nature?
I'm not saying God is going to behave like a human, but surely if and when God creates something, He is pooling knowledge and inspiration from His own self.
So, should we expect God to create something foreign or beyond Himself?

One other point: what impression of God do you get from the Bible, and from where? Is it something He said? Yes, of course.

So, God speaks to us in human language so we can understand Him. Strange that He would sound human, isn't it? Strange that His otherworldly nature is not revealed by the text of His human speech.

Fanny Cradock · 29-10-2009 12:41AM

monosharp wrote: »

Oh ? And how is that ?

I think your mixing up witness and source.

An independent source for the resurrection would be;

Recording of the event in independent writings, by anyone of the period who seen/heard the story who was not part of the religion. e.g. I'm sure a resurrected Christ would have been big news yet not a single document exists from the actual period talking about it. Including your gospels which were written much later.

e.g > We have several independent sources which state Caesar as crossing the Rubicon and starting a Roman civil war. We don't think all these sources witnessed the event in question but they are independent writings at the same time i.e > Cicero didn't copy the information off of Suetonius.

Four things.

First, you are purposely confusing source with witness. A source can be any writer at the time regardless of whether they 'witnessed' the resurrection or not.

Second, on direct witnesses, who are you to say they would become a believer or not ? They might have been frightened to see a dead man walking and headed for the nearest temple to pray to god to save them from the walking dead.

It could have been a roman soldier who witnessed it, it could have been a jewish rabbi, it could have been me. And I guarantee you even if I did see a dead guy walking my first thoughts would not be to kneel in front of him and ask for forgiveness.

Third, they are not my criteria, they are the criteria used by historians the world over to rate accuracy of all historical information we have about anything or anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Fourth, I am not asking for proof of the resurrection. I am asking for proof that people thought such an event took place at that time in that location.

You first accuse me of misunderstanding the difference between a source and a witness (you may actually want to read what I said before needlessly correcting me) and then you go on to accuse me of wilfully confusing matters. You have tried this crap before with me - jumping to conclusions and making accusations about my motives without having the foggiest notion of what you're on about. You obviously enter into these debates expecting the worst from people.

I can't be bothered to debate with you further.

Fanny Cradock · 29-10-2009 01:02AM

Wicknight wrote: »

But do you admit that it is necessary to believe the Christian god exists in the first place in order to make the resurrection a plausible event? That claims of eye witnesses alone do not make a supernatural event plausible (if they did then surely we would be expected to believe any supernatural event someone claims to have witnessed)

No! I am saying that most beliefs or worldviews other than naturalism open the door to something beyond the physical universe. So, yes, I guess, that at a purely perfunctory and cursory level, all supernatural claims are plausible - in the same way that natural claims are also plausible. That there is an abundance of supernatural claims - both from within Christianity and outside - doesn't actually mean that they are all false. I don't actually have any problem with people making claims, I simply don't believe them all.

Apologetics Thread!!!

Comments