/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>657820

or rather occams razor says that if the majority of the others werent correct, this one isnt either.

better way to say that, that i should have said.

Christianity has traditionally never claimed that we are right and everyone else is completely wrong. Rather, the other religions have elements of truth. Just not the complete truth.

I was a late convert, so I had to go through all the struggles of figuring out what religion is true. What I found when I researched is that the great number of religions is something of an illusion. If you take away redundant religions (equivalent shamanistic religions), universalist religions whereby everyone is saved, dead religions where gods stood in as natural causes people could not explain yet, geographically isolated religions that are unlikely to be true, there is very little left. One transcendant God is all that really makes sense.

Think about it another way: Dont you think that if there was a God who was perceivable in nature, in a world corrupted by sin, that it would make total sense for there to be many half-truths , many attempts at finding God that fell short, and many deceptions? The fact that religion is an integral part of all civilisations we have knowledge of, that it persists to this day and is foundational to societies all over the world, means the desire is something inate in humans?

The very impulse that causes such a proliferation of religion is cause to believe at least one of them could be correct. I would argue that Christianity requires far fewer assumptions to be made than atheism, for one, but also most other religions I am aware of.

>>657835

I see what you mean.

But what % of the bible do you believe is true if this is the case?

>>657836

This is too big a question to answer now at 2.35 am on a tablet, but there are differing opinions. It is ALL true in a theological sense. What Genesis conveys (God creates man and earth good, man disobeys, sin and death enters, man is cast out of paradise) is true even if it didnt literally happen. Dont get too caught up on history, because you are likely to miss the real purpose behind the text. I will answer questions tomorrow if no one else has chipped in. Got to sleep now though

>>657822

occams razor is not something you use to decide whether hypothesis is true

>>657838

>It is ALL true in a theological sense

heck of a trump card.. but is it proven, and if proof doesnt matter - what in life do you think requires proof for be true and where is the line drawn? sleep well btw.

>>657839

yea well i try to apply the same reasoning to everything i do in life, has worked well for most things like jobs, family, school, social life, investing, etc.

>>657836

>>657843

It's all valuable and useful for teaching and admonishment.

You have to look at it literarily.

A lot of Genesis is recorded oral tradition, so there's some legend drift from historical record, but we have the distilled and symbolic account.

Most of the rest of the Old Testament is middle-eastern historical account.

The prophets are partially journalistic historic account and part vision -obviously-

Psalms is a collection of songs; Proverbs is a collection of advice; Ecclesiastes is a collection of Solomon's musings on life without God; Song of Solomon is a little more complicated.

The gospels+Acts are more-or-less Greek personal journals.

The letters are letters from Paul to the various church plants on specific issues they were dealing with, some of which can be attested to in other histories.

Revelations is an apocalyptic vision.

I'm probably missing a few things. Regardless, "true" isn't the right kind of mindset to have about it. There is a lot of material, it is very deep, read it, it's free.

>>657835

Christianity is pretty exclusive. 'Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.' By necessity Christianity is excludes everyone who doesn't say that Jesus isn't the only way to heaven.

Jesus did spend three days in the Greek afterlife/hell. If nothing else, the Bible confirms Greek paganism.

There have been hundreds and thousands of other religious beliefs, only one of which is true. Atheism/agnosticism is a religious belief. Further, Christianity is the largest religious belief and growing, giving it consensus status.

>>657859

Hades is the name for hell in Greek…

OP here, wish there was a way to namefag.

ive only responded with these so far

>>657836

>>657839

>>657822

>>657843

anyway

>>657851

>You have to look at it literarily

not sure what you mean here, so youre saying do not verify claims?

>>657864

didnt mean to include this

>>657839

>>657864

Nibba we have IDs here

>>657867

lol mines all numbers and my mind just blurred it into a post number like a tard. yes youre right.

Does your belief in one political system invalidate another?

>people have different opinions on things, I guess they all have the same value duur

I never got why normies are like this. But I've started to think it's because they attribute value to opinions and not facts.

The destruction of Absolute Truth is to blame. Once you accept relative truth, nothing you dare to utter makes sense.

>>657836

All of it.

There's difference between factual and truth that has degenerated from our language.

>>657864

>not sure what you mean here, so youre saying do not verify claims?

I'm saying not all of it can be verified (basically prehistoric accounts in Genesis), or is impossible to verify (poetry, advice, apocalyptic vision).

Please do try and verify things historically; it's rather affirming what people have found. Jesus's life is basically down pat, but some of the Old Testament is still a little shaky, like which pharaoh was the one in Exodus is still a best-guess.

Unless you mean some other kind of 'verification?'

>>657873

so youre saying multiple god exist?

>>657876

There's difference between factual and truth that has degenerated from our language.

source?

>>657883

ok, so jesus was real, but what about the christian god?

>>657884

I'm saying that other religions existing doesn't mean anything. It doesn't disprove or invalidate another.

If all religions were the same then you could say "yeah well lemme run the numbers and pick the one with the best chance". But that's not the case.

If there's a reason to believe in a certain faith that has nothing to do with probability or chance, then probability isn't actually a factor you should consider when examining religions.

In the same way, nobody says "if everyone's capitalist I'm gonna be capitalist" or "according to occam's razor this political system won't be correct because others weren't". Instead, everyone looks at benefits, theories, examples, etc.

What really matters are the deeper concepts like doctrine, theology, perfection, and so on. Trying to boil everything down to odds won't give you any answers.

>>657859

>Greek-speaking people used Greek terms for the afterlife

>So obviously Greek myrhokogy is true

Huge leap. Lurk more.

>>657895

not sure im following your logic.

im saying this:

How can you believe Christianity is connected to an omnipotent god when thousands of religions before it with varying types of gods with differing powers have been worshipped?

or are you just saying that the christian god controlled all the other supposed gods?

>>657884

>ok, so jesus was real, but what about the christian god?

Do you need me to hold your hand through the whole thing?

>>657899

no, just answer the question if possible

>>657898

I'm saying that "thousands of religions before it with varying types of gods with differing powers have been worshipped" doesn't mean anything. It doesn't make one religion more or less valid than another and probability should not be your reason for discrediting a faith.

You said " occams razor says that if the majority of the others werent correct, this one isnt either."

But religion isn't a relative thing. It's not like you believe in religion X and now you have to somehow reconcile it with religions Y and Z. In the same way, if you believe in capitalism, that doesn't suddenly mean communism is "false", or that you have to somehow make some logic to make communism "exist" at the same time as capitalism. They exist independently of each other.

Another way of explaining it is that every religion in the world could have a probability of existing, something like 2%. But for someone who believes in that specific religion, the probability of it existing is 100%, so there's no consistent basis for comparing faiths on such a broad level. You can't use odds, probabilities, or occams razor to make or break your decision. You have to go deeper than that- so you look at theology, scripture, and all those things.

>>657914

and again, you have spun a web of dead end logic here that I simply cannot entertain as its just endless and endless "but what about.."

the question is simple.

How can you worship the christian god as if hes the one true god, and Christianity is anything more than a larp based on a best selling book when there have been thousands of other regions throughout history, now extinct, and just as confident in their god as you.

>>657934

so you want me to read an entire book by some guy instead of simply answer in my question of how you yourself, can believe your religion is anything more than a glorified fiction book.

why can you just tell me the answer in laymens terms? im not reading a bunch of books that seem like indoctrination more than an answer.

if you cant answer this SIMPLE question in a 4chan post, than it doesnt seem very solid of a religion.

different ID btw probably

>>657934

seriously why do you have to pass the buck and tell me to read some other mans opinion. cant you tell me??

I mean the way I see it is you have two answers.

A. "i DONT know its bs like most religions, but i dont care"

or.

B. "I know its not BS like other religions because of this evidence here not based on feelings and conjecture"

these are the ONLY two answers.

>>657820

1. Testament of numerous miracles occurring in the apostolic church throughout history which are well documented, empirically tested, and accompanied by saints who's visions or preaching point to the truth of that church.

2. Testament of the apostles who were killed for the claim they witnessed the risen Christ. If they were lying, they would have said so.

3. We can come to know that a God exists who is the Creator, sustainer, and renewer of all existence through the rational inquiry of philosophy. The Bible is the only scripture which reveals a God who's attributes match those we know the true good must have.

4. Those with purity of heart or honesty of mind are given the grace of faith whereby the knowledge of God and the recognition of him in the call of his son Jesus Christ, is inhered in their hearts.

You know what it's like to want something through direct experience. If you were to try to prove that desire exists to an Android incapable of desire, you surely would not be able to do so. You may be able to point to the accompanying brain states, but you would not be able to prove this is attached to a real feeling you actually experience. All you could point to is the testimony of others who also experience it, and the signs of it's existence in their lives. In much the same way the experience of God's love can only be shown to you by pointing to the testimony of those who have had True Mystical experience of God, and the lives of the saints.

Seek out a saintly soul, and let the grace given to you by God through the Holiness of this saint change your heart. Look for such a one helping the cripple or the crone, or withdrawing from the world on prayer.

>>657898

How can you believe in a world without a god, when millions of other worlds have been strongly believed in before you?

>>657938

>Explain why you believe that Schrodinger's probability equation best described the motion of a proton, using specific evidence. Only SIMPLE answers accepted.

You.

>>658111

> And you may not reference the works of experts.

there are lots of different scientific theories, therefore none of them are true

brainlet

>>657938

You keep shifting the goalposts and you're clearly not reading what I'm saying. I answered you in layman's terms with a simple question and a very basic example. Then you say you don't understand my logic. So I provide a longer explanation with more examples, which you try and strawman what I say by interpreting it as me saying "but what about". You also don't explain how I'm wrong. I decide to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a complex, and logical answer quoted from a book that answers your exact question. Then suddenly that's too much for you and you want a simple answer but I already gave that.

You're being very intellectually dishonest. If you were here for answers, you'd actually read my sources and my posts, but instead you're just moving the goalposts, strawmanning, and desperately avoiding reading the pages even though they answer your question very clearly. Quit trolling.

>>657884

>ok, so jesus was real, but what about the christian god?

if you havent reaced the conclusion that you cant scientifically prove that god exists, yoou need to do quite a bit more thinking. science isn't always able to prove what exists or what is true or what is seen in the heart

>>657884

>ok, so jesus was real, but what about the christian god?

S.S.W.I.F.T.T.

SON of Man

Daniel 7:13

>13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man multiple times.

Lord of the SABBATH

Mark 2:23-28

>23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

>24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

>25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

>26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

>27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

>28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

The Sabbath is the LORD's day, and the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath.

I AM

John 8:56-59

>56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

>57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

>58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.

>59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Here, the Son of Man uses the same declaration as God in the burning bush with Moses. He quite explicitly calls Himself God, and the Jews rage shows this was what He meant.

FORGIVENESS of Sins

Mark 2:5-7

>5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

>6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,

>7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

His authority to forgive sins comes from His divinity.

TRIAL

Mark 14:61-62

>61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

>62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Once again, Christ calls Himself the Son of Man and refers to the prophecies of Daniel.

Luke 23:3

>3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

He gives a positive answer to Pilate, rather than correcting him.

THOMAS

John 20:28-29

>28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

>29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

He does not correct Thomas, as He would is Thomas were in error. Rather, He blesses him.

Jesus IS the God of the Bible. He is "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" or "I AM that I AM".

Now, my friend:

B E G O M E

E

G

O

M

E

>>658107

>Testament

you mean hearsay?

>>658109

>when millions of other worlds have been strongly believed in before you?

please.. explain that?

>>658111

how does this correlate?

>>658118

ok. but this isnt about other scientific theories youre mentioning

>>658124

no goalpost shifting, literally a single unchanging question ive had since the OP

>>658129

i have reached this conclusion, hence the thread asking for other reasons for believing.

>>658159

also diff ID, thanks ISP

>>657820

Pray to have faith. The answers will come later.

>>658161

ive tried praying, for years. i have had no change in curiosity/questions answered

>>658162

>>658159

Read >>658158

>>658177

yes, i read it all. bible passages. not trying to be disrespectful here, but i could do the same with harry potter and the goblet of fire, doesnt mean hagred is going to buy me a broomstick.

maybe re-read my original question and try to answer using your own words.

2+2=4

uncountably many wrong answers

>>658189

OP here, yea well I didnt expect anyone to prove god through a formula, more just asking for their own words on why they believe christianity is the final and true religion.

>>658185

>Believes in Jesus

>Doesn't believe Jesus' own words

Why are you even here?

>>658192

i dont know why im here much anymore to be honest. yes, there very well was a man named jesus and he spoke a language. but how does this answer my question?

>>658160

nvm same ID, thanks isp

>>658159

You aren't even considering people's responses. I make a post with 4 completely separate points and you wave it away with a stupid 4 word response.

You believe the testament of scientific evidence, but not the testament of historical or logical evidence… Okay.

People have believed in a world with many God's,a world with no God,a world that is God, a world with one God, a world that's a dream, a world that's a simulation, etc…

By your logic, Occam's razor suggests that your belief that there is no God most likely is not true. What makes you believe that over all the other possible world views?

In any case, it's clear you really don't want answers but are merely looking to be reassured in your disbelief at best, or trolling. I'm done here.

>>658202

i see a screenshot of other threads and yet more conjecture on your part. what is to garner here?

>>658203

Ive considerd every response, and I waved yours away with a short response as it was the only response that was fitting.

also,

scientific evidence =/= words from a book written by people no longer alive or that have provided any experiment setup that can be carried out today and re-affirmed.

please look into the scientific method.

But im not asking for scientific answers, im asking for a PERSONAL response on how you believe Christianity to be the true final religion,.. I suppose I've received my answer, you lie to yourself and do not care if you know it is for sure.

>>658209

>Ive considerd every response, and I waved yours away with a short response as it was the only response that was fitting.

Explain how your response was fitting?

>scientific evidence =/= words from a book written by people no longer alive or that have provided any experiment setup that can be carried out today and re-affirmed.

I did not refer to the Bible for evidence in 3 of my answers. In 2 I pointed you too verifiable evidence, and in one that evidence was empirical.

I have scientific training and work as an engineer. I don't need you to explain the scientific method to me.

I'm using the word testament in the sense of testimony as in the testimony of evidence in court. That a ball dropped from various heights will have fall times predictable according to f=ma^2 gives testament to the validity of Newton's theories. Likewise the evidence I referred you to give testament to the truth of biblical claims. Note:. I did not refer to the Bible as evidence.

>But im not asking for scientific answers, im asking for a PERSONAL response on how you believe Christianity to be the true final religion,.. I suppose I've received my answer, you lie to yourself and do not care if you know it is for sure.

I have you 4, numbered answers as to how and why I believe what I do. You have not remotely addressed 3 of them, and hand waved the fourth. That you then dismiss me in this way proves you are not here to have a serious or rational discussion. You argue like a child.

>>658217

ok, and i said i believe I have my answer, you are taking heresay and conjecture from people who lived thousands of years ago and solid enough proof of Christianity being the way of life you should follow as commanded by a supernatural being.

>>658239

> They will cause you to believe that news orgs aren't biased to the left and colluding together

well that has never happened, but ill take your word for it.

as for all of the other hotbutton topics you bring up, may i ask why this is pertinent? thanks

>>658247

If you are ok with homosexuality and abortion then please do not become a pretend Christian. We have enough subverters in the church as it is.

>>658253

ill leave you be to put random weird words in my mouth, please enjoy

>>658255

nice screenshot, care to elaborate?

>>658258

You act like a cunt. You were concerned about Occam's razor and I told you with examples why it's a bunch of crap. Believe whatever you want.

>>658263

I literally following a line of logic ive been following since i created the OP and this makes me a cunt.

nice potty mouth btw

>>658269

i'm

>>658311

this is conjecture seeing as you cannot fully prove you know exactly what the universe is/can be/will ever be/is right now.

interesting nonetheless and I enjoyed your intelligent post, however misguided.

>>658344

>this is conjecture seeing as you cannot fully prove you know exactly what the universe is/can be/will ever be/is right now.

If I gave hard proofs, I would take up too much space to post. That's why I told you to google thomas aquinas and william lane craig. They're a bit better at laying out the cosmological arguments I take for granted in the major section of my post.

>>658352

yea, well im not a philosophy majpr, im just asking for laymens terms, kinda ridiculous everyone keeps telling me to read x amount of books and take an online course or two just to understand why Christianity could possibly be anything but fiction.

>>658379

new id

>>658448

good point, i guess I still just go with with makes the most sense logically, as you're right, anything can be disproven - yet we still tend to give credence to what seems like it makes the most sense. For instance, the double yellow line on the road is a divider of lanes, most people agree with this because of the amount of evidence of head on collisions when not observing it.

prob diff id btw

>>657820

It's called weights, you dumbee. did you fail statistics?

>2+2=3 is wrong

>2+2=5 is wrong

>2+2=27 is wrong

>2+2= -782 is wrong

>2+2=pi is wrong

>etc

Therefore

>2+2=4 is wrong

>>658509

sigh. please elaborate.

>>658514

i cant

>Hey dude, there are infinite numbers, so obviously 2+2 must have many solutions

>There are millions of men in the world, so more than one must be your father

>Occam's razor, guys! Which means… something about fedoras being great, I guess.

You may be missing one or two brains

>>657820

I know people are gonna say that I'm a modernist heretic, and I probably am, for saying this, but I had a similar issue when my grandfather, a devout muslim, passed away a few months ago. I looked at my pastor and said to him "I don't believe my grandfather is in hell. Because I don't believe god punishes bad faith, I think he punishes bad people." He agreed especially with the latter, the former he wasn't sure about, but the way I see it, and I might be extremely naive for saying this, but to paraphrase an idea from C.S. Lewis, if you serve good, you serve God, whether you believe it's God the Father, Allah, flying spaghetti monster, what ever. If someones only "sin" is a lack of belief in Christ as the son of god, whether the message of the gospel was just relayed poorly, or he's from a place, in this case Turkey, where being a christian is a completely foreign idea and just wasn't likely to happen, I can't see a perfect, loving, just god sending someone to the lake of fire for that. After all, I believe Christ died for everyone's sins, not just us. Call it modernist heresy, but it's how I reconciled the issue.

>>658579

how is climate change not going to destroy the world?

>>658592

What?

>>658311

wouldn't an unrealized potential of God be the incarnation of Jesus?

>>658593

my reply was meant for this guy whoops: >>658239

>>658595

Oooooh. I was legitimately confused for a minute.

>>658579

>I know people are gonna say that I'm a modernist heretic,

Judging based on your replies, you just don't believe in the existence of truth. The only thing is for some reason something prompted you to ask if things might not be that way, but now that you're here you keep reverting to denying the existence of truth despite their attempts.

>I can't see a perfect, loving, just god sending someone to the lake of fire for that.

Guess what, in this sentence you just invented your own false god. You have to make up your mind whether you believe in objective truth or not, you can't sit here and make up stuff that makes you feel better but then ask to hear the truth at the same time. I don't care how many gentle affirming C.S Lewis's there are, you must decide to seek truth or give up and end up where all unbelieving and liars go.

>>658592

Watch this https://youtu.be/VZZ8J7rxKqc?t=364

>>658605

ok sure, people in african tribes that never heard of Jesus in their lives are going to hell.

>>658579

interesting viewpoint. thanks for the actual answer based on my question. still no idea why you would even call yourself christian if you have the braincells to perform this logic operation.

>>658712

id..

THANKS ISP

>>657820

There are multiple accounts of history; how do we know which account is true? Finding truth in a sea of lies and confusion is something that is in our hearts and should be in your heart as well. Read G.K. Chesterton's 'Orthodoxy' or any C.S. Lewis book concerning Christianity. Or, you may as well read the primary source: The Bible.

>>658739

are these posts parody??

I literally just said like 5 posts up, why is everyone telling me to go read a book series instead of just answering in their own words?

>>658753

>. They are dead gods. They never had power and were as real as the Power Rangers.

backed by conjecture on your part i assume?

>Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

one time my neighbor was drunk and said he was batman. should i believe him?

>>658820

man, i had such high hopes for your post in the beginning, then you literally just went on to talk about your feelings and what some man supposedly said 2k years ago that you now take as fact, or rather literally gospel.

You answered my question though, you believe christianity is the one true religion because you are easily persuaded with stories and fable.

>>658758

Did you have years of ninja training, a cave, batmoble, and a side kick named Robin when your drunk neighbor said that statement?

>>658864

no, because no one has this.

bump for interest

>>662110

But I thought /c*tholics/ were against usury?

>>657820

Christianity isn't a relgion. Jesus fought against relgion and the religious… And the religious murdered him for it.

Chritianity is a lifestyle, a way of life free from the works of religion. That's what makes it different.

Stop thinking of it as a relgion and think of it as a different way of living.

Stop trying to free yourself. You're already free.

>>658889

Then your batman comparison is bad because Peter said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" because of Jesus fitting the criteria

>>657820

You do realize there are more and better philosophical razor's than Occams?

>>658159

>you mean hearsay?

Equating rules of evidence at common law as

if such a rule existed or had the same impact in philosophy…

Occam's razor posits the simplest solution is more likely than not correct… It has nothing to do with the number of religions that have existed.

>>657836

All of it. The truth value of other religions is simply irrelevant. Find Christians who have a grasp on actual logic, because whoever explained Occam's razor to you has a biased understanding of how it applies or what it even is.

>>663858

>Occam's razor posits the simplest solution is more likely than not correct…

that's not occam's razor my good man

occams razor is a heuristic method of disregarding (or cutting, hence razor) explanations or theories for any given set of observations. occams razor posits that when comparing two explanations or hypotheses, if they are identical in every way except one of them requires more assumptions then we disregard that one.

this is generally an accepted razor because assumptions are unattractive, so if a theory is assuming more things without getting anything in return you're just making assumptions for no profit, it's better to subscribe to the equally good theory that makes less assumptions.

note that occams razor is not an argument, it's a razor. from the perspective of propositional logic it is of no value whatsoever and belongs in the trash.

>>658379

>it's kinda rediculous that people are asking me to read when I'm asking them one of the most difficult questions in our history as humans

I've read through all of this thread up to here. You accused others of being intellectually dishonest, yet you clutch onto Occam's Razor like a 14 year old who just happened to stumble across the Wikipedia page.

Do you honestly think that you could come to an understanding of one of the most profound and important questions in history in mere layman's terms?

You just dismissed the cosmological argument out of hand, despite the fact that philosophers can't even dismiss it because there's no way around it other than pleading ignorance.

>>657820

Layman's terms, or as near as I can put it:

Cosmological argument (aka 'Kalam Cosmological Argument,' doctoral thesis of William Lane Craig, described for the layman at reasonablefaith.com and in the book 'On Guard'): We know the universe had a beginning due to background radiation and the Big Bang. Things which begin must have causes. The cause of the universe must be non-deterministic at some point in the chain (as any deterministic cause must also have a finite regression of causes back to an uncaused first cause, which, if infinitely existent and deterministic, would have already come to pass an infinite amount of time in the past). This cause must also be capable of existing outside space and time, since those came into existence at the foundation of the universe. There are only two things which may exist independent of time and space: abstract concepts and consciousness. Abstract concepts have no causal power, so it must be a consciousness. I don't know what you would call a consciousness capable of creating a universe from nothing, but 'God' sounds pretty good to me.

Historical evidence of Christianity (best explained in the Book "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel): The historicity of Jesus Christ is the single most attested to fact in all of classical antiquity. With three first hand accounts and one second hand account (those being the four gospels) going into great detail and numerous other historical documents, both friendly and hostile, confirming certain events, it is a sign of total stupidity to deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. We have more evidence for his existence than we have for Charlemagne or Julius Caesar, yet nobody denies their existence (well, almost nobody). Will tens of thousands of documents spread across three continents and multiple languages (with virtually zero non-grammatical/non-spelling differences), the earliest dating to within a single copying of the original, and the oldest documents written when eyewitnesses to the events were plentiful, the correct attribution and accuracy of the texts is better than anything we have…period. The second best attested to texts are the works of Homer, for which we have only a few hundred surviving copies, the oldest of which dates to over two centuries after his death.

One all of those facts have been compiled, what can be said of those texts? First off, not one contemporary account denies the empty tomb. Those who were hostile to Christianity need only have gone to the tomb, a well-known, publicly available location owned by the local religious council, have some soldiers unseal it (no small feat, given the way such crypts were sealed), and show people the body. New Testament letters written by Paul say that if Christ isn't risen, then Christianity means nothing, and nobody showed him the body. Hostile accounts claim the body was stolen by the apostles, ridiculous given the military guard around the tomb and manpower required to unseal it. So, despite the leader of the budding religion dying, unceremoniously, the death of a rebel and traitor, His apostles, after a period of scattering to hide (or else they would have been crucified with Him), suddenly developed a newfound fervor, spreading the religion as far away as Ethiopia, Rome, Moscow, and India within a single generation and were willing to die and let their families die slowly and painfully rather than denounce the faith, and not one person denied any of the easily disproven events that could have killed the faith in its infancy.

Given these two pieces of evidence, the best fit explanation for the evidence is the Christianity is true, Christ is risen, and you need to repent while you have time. The only alternative is that both time and space sprang into being from absolutely nothing and that a massive conspiracy launched Christianity and that people who knew it was a lie would rather be tortured to death with their whole families than admit the lie. If you're so fixed on shaving with Occam's Razor, you can't continue to hold to the belief that the universe came from nothing and that Christianity is a massive conspiracy.

>>664247

we do not know the universe had a beginning, only that the big bang is as far back as we are able to use physics knowledge to reverse engineer causality.

one might argue that a finite universe sounds more plausible or intuitive than a recurring universe or any number of other weird alternatives, but being that would be a separate claim than the claim that any other hypothesis is metaphysically impossible.

>>664266

>Universe isn't necessarily finite

This is the single wrongest thing you could say about astrophysics. According to all data we have, time and space both began to exist at the moment of the Big Bang. Even if they didn't, the universe must be finite because it is decaying, and by the way infinites work, a universe with no beginning that was decaying would have already ceased to exist. You're going to have to come up with something way better than 'no, you're wrong' to dismiss out of hand everything that's been said about the origins of the universe for the past several decades. Not even the most hopeless fedora neckbeards claim the universe didn't have a beginning.

>>664266

>one might argue that a finite universe sounds more plausible or intuitive than a recurring universe

Good thing we have advanced beyond choosing whether something is true because of whether you feel like its true.

>>664471

i'm afraid astrophysics is unable to show that the universe being finite is logically necessary, or that time and space began to exist at the big bang. the big bang is just as far back as we are able to work out entropy, there may very well have been a "before big bang"

>the universe must be finite because it is decaying, and by the way infinites work, a universe with no beginning that was decaying would have already ceased to exist

for all i know the universe is constantly decaying and regenerating, or it could be recursive, or all other manner of strangeness that easily solve such surface level problems. i'm not particularly committed into believing such strange hypotheses, but i bring them up to show that the bold claim that the universe had to have had a beginning is vulnerable. you are over extended. such claims will always be vulnerable, this is just how metaphysics works.

>>664753

>I have absolutely no links, proof, or even scientifically backed conjecture to support my assertions, but hey, it could be true, and I FEEL like it must be true, because the only alternative is that there really is a God.

Yep, typical atheist. Cry Science and Logic and Reason until it goes against you, then say 'nuh uh' whenever it ceases to fit the narrative.

Do some basic research. Literally nobody of any import states the Big Bang is 'as far back as we can trace entropy.' That is a series of words, each with individual meaning, but stripped of it when put in that order. Even the most devoted atheistic scientists agree that the Big Bang is the point at which both time and space came into being. They just argue that anything but God must have caused it.

What you're saying has about as much basis in science as the statement "All living creatures are eternally existent. It's just that the unity of the egg and sperm is as far back as we can trace it."

>>664763

don't project science and logic memes unto me in order to have a convenient target for attack. my assertion is that scientists are stepping out of line when they make such claims, they are over extended.

>Even the most devoted atheistic scientists agree that the Big Bang is the point at which both time and space came into being.

this is untrue.

for all your love of science, you haven't done anything other than appeal to authority. can you show me that the big bang could not have possibly been preceded by, for instance, a great compression of the existing universe?

>>657820

Simple,

I need God.

If I do not believe in one God that is pure and everlasting, my efforts would become meaningless.

Whether there actually is one does not matter, you just have to believe that there is.

>>664766

>Could the universe have had a beginning?

>No. It is the scientists who are wrong!

Sooooooooooooo, you want me to prove to you, over a text post, that the common consensus of science is actually true…because you just FEEL it must be wrong? Let's skip the middle man.

Me: Here are dozens of scientific papers about the nature of the Big Bang and the cosmic background radiation, along with a meta-analysis of those papers supporting everything I said.

You: APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!

Either present to me somebody with some actual credentials spewing your nonsense or piss off. Everything you've said about the Big Bang goes directly against everything that's been posited for the past 70 years, and the only thing you have to back it up with is "Because I said so."

>>664770

>>No. It is the scientists who are wrong!

i'm not asserting that the universe couldn't have had a beginning, only that it's logically possible that it didn't, which you claim otherwise.

>Me: Here are dozens of scientific papers about the nature of the Big Bang and the cosmic background radiation, along with a meta-analysis of those papers supporting everything I said.

this was not done. instead you are appealing to authority/consensus, which you know is a fallacy but decided this is an exception, because science.

>Either present to me somebody with some actual credentials spewing your nonsense or piss off.

don't attempt to shift the burden of proof. i'm not saying it's impossible for the universe to have had a beginning, i'm pointing out that it hasn't been shown to be logically necessary, such that it would support the corresponding premise of the KCA.

i think your post demonstrates a certain unwarranted self confidence scientists have in making metaphysical claims. it is plainly evident that there are plenty of eternal universe hypotheses that are internally consistent and consistent with reality. you are invited to show they are all metaphysically impossible and a finite universe is the only possibility, but this is virtually impossible for all sorts of reasons. you should be able to come to terms with this, and moderate your claims accordingly. not even william lane craig tries to present the kalam cosmological argument as deductive proof, but rather part of a cumulative case for the plausibility of christianity.

>>664779

>I hereby dismiss all evidence that the universe had a beginning based on the idea that it might possibly in some way be logically possible for it to not have a beginning. The burden of proof is on you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything we know about the universe is true.

By your logic, you haven't proven to me you're not just a troll trying to get a rise out of people. You're either that or a really stupid teenager. Oh, and as for your assertions that "I'm just saying it's logically possible," two problems:

One:

>we do not know the universe had a beginning

Very different from 'well, it's logically possible that it didn't have a beginning.'

Two: By the same burden of proof, it is logically possible that you're just an AI program or a figment of my imagination trying to mess with me. It's possible one of us is just a consciousness existing without any physical reality and just hallucinating everything (in fact, this is far more probable than a universe being conjured from nothing which is also far more probable than the universe only having the overwhelming appearance of having a beginning despite being infinitely existent). It is logically possible that the Earth is flat and you've been lied to your whole life. It's logically possible that this entire conversation is being controlled by lizardmen. It's possible you were born five minutes ago and everything before that is an implanted memory. Just because it has some finite probability of actuality does not mean it's an option worth discussing or that it's not a complete waste of time trying to disprove it. The overwhelming evidence is that the universe had a beginning, and if you are seriously saying that your reason for doubting God is that you doubt that the universe had a beginning is like saying that your reason for disobeying the law is that you don't think the law was ever actually written, but everybody pretends it was.

Background radiation, the echo of creation, the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe, and the fact that as you trace time backwards all of space and time reduce down to a single point is NOT metaphysical philosophy. It is hard physics. What came before it is metaphysics.

You might as well doubt your own existence for all of your willingness to accept any kind of evidence.

>>664809

>>we do not know the universe had a beginning

>Very different from 'well, it's logically possible that it didn't have a beginning.'

those statements are not at all "very different". for us to know the proposition "the universe didn't have a beginning" would entail that the proposition is true. if it is true then it can't also be false at the same time, or else we would have a contradiction, which is by definition not logically possible.

"i don't know that p" entails "for all i know, it's possible that not-p"

>Two:…

yes, these are all logically possible things. now, you seem to think i place undue importance on mere logical possibility, but i would like to think i place the appropriate amount of importance on it. there is a large gap between mere possibility and plausibility, and i have no desire of confusing the two. it is, however, completely valid to bring up mere possibility as a problem for those who claim to know something with complete certainty; consequently, deductive proof is very hard to do. among professional philosophers, this is considered to be a matter of course, and they adjust lower their goals accordingly. we are surely not professional philosophers, so don't stubbornly persist in holding unto this ethos of certainty, which seems to be oozing out of your every word.

at any rate my initial point wasn't to bring up the mere possibility of an eternal universe, that was more of a response to later posts made by you, and as you said yourself, mere possibility is not very compelling. the main issue i have is that i don't see how the big bang firmly establishes the plausibility of the universe having a beginning. it's conceivable that the big bang was brought about by some antecedent in an already extant universe, such as for example, if the universe mysteriously compressed into the point of singularity, and then caused the big bang. you seem to have it on good authority with science that this is absurd, but it's not immediately obvious to me why that is.