What is the best evidence for Christianity?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard
I am not going to refute everything that I disagree with you on here, I was making a general statement and providing questions for others to answer in order to make up theri minds. The fact that yoiu have answered and given us your opinion is appreciated.

And I appreciate that you give your opinions. But many of your opinions are stated as facts that should be justified but are not.

You cannot expect Creationist to know the best evidence for when you know Creationists are against Evolution. Your reasoning about that makes no sense to me, but I am happy to leave it at that.

I don't follow your logic. Creationists claim that evolution is false. Their claim cannot have any validity whatsoever if they don't know anything about the best evidence for evolution. How is it that you don't understand this? It's like a hill-billy that can't add 1 + 2 going to NASA and telling them their calculus is all wrong.

Your assertion that I will "prove myself correct in either case" is absurd. It is the evidence that decides the case. Since you have not been able to refute my logic and facts, you resort to making absurd assertions that I am some sort of freak who will "prove himself correct" regardless of the evidence. I know that's what Christians do on a daily basis, so it is particularly ironic that you accuse me of such.

Conclude whatever you like, for expediency, I am not going to get involved discussing or justifying every word I use/write. We are discussing the evidence for many things and discussing many topics and I simply refuse to keep going over the same ground to justify my statements.

I think I understand the problem. I guess we are different kinds of people. Personally, my biggest hope is for people to challenge my assertions to force me to evaluate if they can stand upon logic and facts. Now don't get me wrong, I understand there is more to knowledge than things that can be proven, but those are matters of opinion so they can't be settled with any certainty. I got tired of those kinds of assertions a long time ago, and it is my desire to engage people about REALITY that can be established with some sort of certainty.

From what you say, it seems as if my demand for justification of your opinions just frustrates you. So I guess we are different in that regard. I love justifying my statements. I love it when folks challenge what I say. That helps me know if my beliefs are true or false.

You show us your reasoning which is not always good,

You constantly make the same unsupported assertion that my reasoning is not good, but you rarely if ever actually show any error in my logic. You did the same thing to Rose. You merely asserted her logic was erroneous but failed to support that assertion with any facts. No one knows what you are talking about when you make general assertions like "your reasoning is not always good." If there is EVER an error in my logic, please do me the service of stating exactly what it is. That's how I respond to you. I quote you and then show your error. I would be delighted if you would follow suit.

but when you have stated what you believe or prefer to promote, I am happy to leave it at that and do not challenge because you are repeating what I have read in hundreds of your posts.

I repeat things because they have been supported with facts yet you continue to reject them without giving any sustainable refutation. So I repeat them to because they are true and have not been refuted. I will stop repeating things I think are true the moment you show me a valid reason to think they are not true.

There may be a new reader to the forum that has not had time to read your posts of the past, but when they do, they will soon see as I do that yo keep repeating and asserting the things you do that I and others do not agree and others have already given you their evidence that I agree with and do not have to repeat the evidence.

If that were true, you could prove me wrong in a heartbeat. But you can't prove me wrong because you are merely making more assertions. The things I repeat are the things that have been proven true, or at least have not been refuted as yet. I repeat them because they are true yet you will not admit it nor refute them.

I think I understand the problem. You are not used to dealing with someone like me who is strongly motivated to find the truth and who holds everyone's feet to the fire, including my own. I don't let mere assertions go by unchallenged. I can understand why that would frustrate you, especially if you are thinking "religiously" which means "without real evidence."

If we keep going over every every point in every post, we will soon all lose interest and whilst I want to reason things out from the Bible perspective, I am fast getting bored by continual challenges and assertions that have been discussed in earlier posts in different threads.

We wouldn't have to go over the same ground if you had dealt with the issues when they were first raised. Case in point: Neither you nor John has shown any error in post 71. And you have not dealt with what I wrote at all, even though you quoted it in your post. That's the recipe for frustration. I'd be frustrated except I've grown a very thick skin because I know how hard it is for people to face facts that contradict their beliefs. So I just PERSIST in my demand for a reasoned discussion. But you get frustrated because I keep pointing out that you have not answered the very question you quoted.

And John has not answered despite repeated requests.

So I get the impression I have found an irrefutable refutation of the "empty tomb" argument.

That's why I am such a "bulldog" - I want to know if anyone can find of any refutation of my argument. If not, then I have good confidence that I might be on to something.

I would be happy to engage you on the Trinity from a purely biblical perspective. I intended to but other activities took precedence.

But I'm glad you have tried to give an answer. And it's good that you don't have a "ready-made answer." I would much rather know what you think than what you can copy and paste from the internet.

Good, there is hope we can continue. Just do not expect evidence for statements made in every post when we are discussing these things in other threads. I would hope you take on board the evidence and reasons othes have been giving you, which it is pointless me repeating. I would hope you take a little on board and present some new ideas for a change especially when you claim not to believe the Bible or the Quran. To repeat myself from another thread, it is difficult not to accept you believe something when you assert that somthing is true and you never present the alternatives to understanding passages in the Bible.

Yes, there is much hope for a continued fruitful discussion!

I take in all the evidence that is presented to me. I am the one who invented the "What's the best evidence for your opponents position?" - remember? I'm the one who is open to evidence that contradicts my positions. But for you, the concept of considering opposing evidence is so contrary to your religious point of view that you can't even conceive of the idea that a Creationist should know the evidence for evolution. We are coming from very different spaces. I am well practiced in having my ideas and beliefs challenged. I love it. It seems to cause you distress. I'm sorry about that, but I really think you could learn to love it just like me. The only thing stopping you from being a TRUTH LOVER like me is your belief in dogmas that you fear may not be true. That's what shuts down you mind. That's why you can't even think about the evidence that supports the opposing view. And be warned - that is what will blind you to truth! Think about that ...

How can you doubt if my statement is true? It is obviously true. I don't see a word that could be challenged. I guess that's why you chose to "leave it to one side."

I leave it aside for expediency, whether it is true or not. Why not just accept that and move on.

You didn't answer my question again. My statement was true. I don't see a word that could be challenged. Why don't you just admit it? A primary impediment to fruitful discourse is the refusal of one side to admit anything the other side says is true.

This is why you are so frustrated. I have to keep repeating the same question because you often don't answer even when you quote my question.

I look forward to that and I expect Twospirits will too. Perhaps we can get back on track to reasoning and not having to justify evey written comment. Please give us so much evidence that we have nothing to challeng you on, we can all give up everything we have come to believe from years of contemplating the things God has revealed and this forum becomes redundant in discussing the Bible any further. We can all agree with you and take a rest.

You would have a lot less statements to "justify" if you only wrote statements that were self-justifying because they were based on logic and facts. It is your opinions and empty assertions stated as "facts" that require justification.

And your attitude about me is rather disappointing. You have completely misunderstood me. The last thing in the world I would want is for you to "agree" with my opinion! I want you to be free! To think your own thoughts! To challenge everything I say! To prove me wrong when I'm wrong and to affirm that I'm right when I'm right. I want you to speak the truth that you know can be supported by logic and facts. I do not want "agreement" with my opinion. I want you to get REAL about the words you write so they don't have to be tediously "justified." Forget the rhetoric of belief and discuss things that can be established as true or false with certainty.

All the very best to you, my frustrated friend,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Just a quick note here concerning this statement: You say “they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." That's not true. No one disputes that Paul's letters were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Christ. So let us argue from Paul's letters. Either these letters contain myth and lies or they do not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. But here there is not even one generation that has yet past. Most scholars hold that 1 Corinthians was written about 55 A.D. Making this writing about 25 years after Christ's resurrection. If these letters are not myth, then the Gospels are not either, for Paul affirms all the main claims of the Gospels.

There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when the books were written who could testify whether they came from their purported authors or not. Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:3-8 about the witnesses who saw Christ after his resurrection. Paul says in this passage (v. 6) that most of the five hundred are still alive, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses -- he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies still alive, if it were not true.

God bless---Twospirits

Hey there Henry,

There is a simple test to see if your argument is true. We need only apply it to the book of Mormon:

Just a quick note here concerning this statement: You say “they were free to make up whatever they wanted without worrying about being "contradicted." That's not true. No one disputes that Joseph Smith's crap was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses to Joseph Smith's crap. So let us argue from Joseph Smith's crap. Either that crap contains myth and lies or it does not. If so, there is lacking the several generations necessary to build up a commonly believed myth. But here there is not even one generation that has yet past. Most scholars hold that Joseph Smith's crap was written about 1840 A.D. Making his writing concurrent with his own crap. If his crap is not myth, then neither is any of the other crap written by Mormons, for Joe Smith affirms all the main claims found in all the other Mormon crap.

There were many eyewitnesses who were still alive when Joseph Smith wrote his crap who could testify whether any of it was true. Joe Smith writes about the witnesses who saw the Golden Tablets after they were revealed by the angel Moroni. Joe Smith says there were 12 witnesses, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses -- he could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies still alive, if it were not true.

I trust that clears things up.

Richard

Richard Carrier explains why the resurrection does not give good evidence for Christianity.

[Linnorm Noxot]

some of the best evidence that I have is that the very reality that I am in is truly not seeing God. this pushes me to have more faith that the bible speaks the truth, since I am so often ignorantly resisted even though no one looks into great details of the things which I speak about. namely that the bible is a spiritual book and it's own language, rather than it being able to be comprehended in any kind of literal fashion. I have seen the blind ignorance of multitudes of Christians, and they seem to all not believe that the bible should be read in a purely spiritual manner. their logic and reasoning is clearly pointed out in the bible, that they are flesh/letter/literal/legalistic/jews according to the flesh... they are followers of the written word rather than spiritual/good/truth/innocence/jews according to the spirit... which is to be let free in the liberty of the sons of God. this is due to bad teachers and sheep-like follows that eat whatever is fed to them, no matter how disgusting it is. it appears as if there is no critical thinking upon the matters of what is good and what is evil. they seem to not comperhend the nature of God, since they assume so many evil things about him. I do not yet fully grasp what is keeping unbelievers that know that the bible is wrong when they read it according to the literal, but I do believe it has something to do with not listening to the spiritual truth and believing that the bible is meant to be understood in a literal way, therefore they see it as evil and resist it. I do believe that non-believers also do not accept the bible as from God because they are carnal minded just like the christian believers I spoke of, they believe that this reality and their view is strong enough to comprehend teachings that no man can ever learn on his own. and also that they focus on the physical reality and believe that is the true nature of existence.


also I have seen in the spiritual that all things in the bible form into one cohesive spiritual narrative. I have seen the bible to be like a vast ocean of spiritual truth. it is quite plain that much of the new testament was written in a hidden manner, to protect the followers of christ from all the mass false teachings that would and did rise up. it was also written in that way to trip up people who do not have a heart of wax, and to show to their face that they have only a heart of stone and are in need of obtaining something more to be able to know God more fully. the interconnections that the bible has is vastly and overwhelmingly able to ground me in the faith of Jesus Christ. also I have recently started to learn things in a different fashion, it is more like knowledge is poured out on me rather than me some how obtaining it through study.

another evidence is that I read many books that I taste and see that they are good, such as the epistle of barnabas, the book of enoch, the shepherd of hermas, philip k. dicks spiritual writtings, origen, various mystics, ect. I see they are in exact conformity with the spirit of God and yet most believers resist them because they use their carnal reasonings and their religious laws that tell them that they should not count those books as spiritual. it is like I say "look here is the color red" and they tell me that there is only a few books that have the color red on them even though I see right before my eyes the substance of what forms those books. it is like people thinking that to obtain knowledge and wisdom one must pay money and go to a school and earn a piece of paper that tells everyone they are wise and have knowledge. it is absurd, to gain knowledge and wisdom one must eat of it and be it.