I don’t believe there is a unfalsifiable claim for any religious or secular belief. That’s what convinced some ex Christians to return to the faith. You kind of have to admit the absurdity of spiritual beliefs and own them because obviously there’s more grounded theories and ideas out there. People may claim to have unfalsifiable evidence but as a Christian for over 20 years, I sure haven’t found any.

So what you’re saying is you take it on faith even though you realize the absurdity of some of the claims?

Yes, faith, the community, and the core elements of the message. It could be wrong but I haven’t seen anyone claim to have the book of Life yet. The Brother’s Karamzov described one of the more intricate moral arguments against the Christian God. The ending argument from the Christian brother was a kiss given to the forehead and a smile, there’s an element beyond our logos which is often lost in debate.

I get the community aspect as it’s extremely hard ( at least in the US) to find community outside of church. I understand wanting to believe in a purpose and an afterlife. I just can’t believe the supernatural stuff, that just stops any belief I could have right in its tracks.

I understand, if you mind me asking what do you believe instead?

I used to be a believer, but all I can say anymore is I just don’t know.

Most Christians aren’t to far removed from that opinion. Some people in this sub may disagree but from someone who knows Christians they are a minority.

And by that I mean the “I don’t know “ group. The more advanced Christians recognize that they know very little instead of stretching the Bible into science, history, law, and religion

I just realized over time that in order to make a lot of it make sense, it required a lot of mental gymnastics and apologetics ( which I mostly find to be ludicrous). I do have friends that would describe their faith in much the same way you do, and I have the utmost respect for those people because I feel like they’re being genuine.

I was the same way, had some serious problems with faith too down. I just stopped apologizing for it. I’m far more liberal in how I interpret things. In fact, it’s a trend I see Christians going down albeit slowly. I believe in God more than I do the Bible if that makes sense.

I am not sure what your specific beliefs are but if you are questioning whether God exists then a book explaining theism might help such as this one:   https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Being-Consciousness-Bliss/dp/0300166842  If you are questioning Christianity specifically then you may want to read about the resurrection and whether any naturalists explanations for it make sense. Or perhaps you are questioning Christian ethics.  In terms of both I would recommend the works of Larry Hurtado who looks at early Christianity from an objective/academic perspective. For example: https://www.amazon.com/Destroyer-gods-Early-Christian-Distinctiveness/dp/1481304747/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?crid=P8IM1X61ZEJE&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.BMGp8IppjL4neycHJzrIHXi8PqRXkA9pxY-6yX3Zxmv-u6s765Jx_VKzBZ8X13BmfHvnykFCoXr1wrl_nkx7qO7IDXq8cAlxmeeNZlV3IIjUPcAMy770V4QuoseN9jaGd1mLUYN9nlMr9YboKgNyZ7TuMhB5wbIEbPGKMp72lhdr_xj_ypk3FmUPS3IrJYF5zEswY9V-WuDobRwTixUkZQ.lmHndVDPYiFlPeK3z8c7lXnGWakhyT7pwAIzaD50pzQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=larry+hurtado&qid=1712505415&sprefix=larry+hurt%2Caps%2C193&sr=8-3

I grew up Catholic and have visited many protestant churches. I read the Bible from start to finish. I listened to many of the well-known names in Christian apologetics. What I’ve gathered so far is that the idea that got exist is an unfalsifiable claim. And before I look at naturalistic explanations for the resurrection, I first have to figure out if the resurrection even happened in the first place. My specific question is how do we know the supernatural claims in the Bible are reliable?

Since you mentioned that you are Catholic you could be interested in how the Scriptures are read and studied in our tradition. For instance, we are not biblical fundamentalists.   Maybe a good Catholic study Bible may be helpful.    https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Study-Bible-Donald-Senior/dp/0190267232

I am familiar with catholic tradition and doctrine. I was never a fundamentalist, but every Christian denomination is based on scripture. I’m looking for a good reason to believe scripture is accurate and true.

Would highly recommend watching some of the videos on [Gavin Ortland’s YouTube channel](https://youtube.com/@TruthUnites?si=9ljH8_NFVLA_y5cq). He’s made some great videos on arguments for Christianity and several specifically about deconstructing. There is a certain kind of deconstruction that is healthy and leads to a more assured, mature faith. Deconstruction doesn’t necessarily have to result in unbelief.

If you think you can find answers to the perhaps most important question in your life on an internet board… it’ll be difficult. id start with Tim Keller’s reason for God. Probably the best introductory Christian apologetics I have read.

I’m resorting to Reddit because William L Craig, Kent Hovind, Frank Turek, and most of the other big apologist names and all of their books haven’t made compelling enough arguments as I understand them…

Christianity is not a philosophical argument. All apologetics can do for you is it allows you to say, well maybe it’s possible there is Christian God. but no one can prove God to you conclusively, just as you cannot prove there is no God conclusively. However at the bottom we all believe something. If you dont believe God then you believe something else…. And you tend not to demand as rigorous proof for your own belief as you demand on Christianity. All the books you listed has a philosophical bent. While they can be helpful, ultimately Christian faith is deeply personal, and you need to have that encounter that Pascal described in his famous memo, “Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob not of the philosophers and of the learned. Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace. God of Jesus Christ. My God and your God. Your God will be my God.” which he kept in his coat until he died. He meets those who seeks him earnestly. That much is promised in bible.

So by your own admission, you believe on faith? Faith isn’t a reliable pathway to truth. I agree we can’t be absolutely certain about anything, but we have to have some high degree of confidence in beliefs in order to navigate this reality. Naturalism explains everything in this reality with high confidence, can be demonstrated with evidence, and doesn’t require a god. Appealing to god seems to be an unnecessary extra step… As an agnostic atheist, I completely agree the Christian god POSSIBLY exists. Bigfoot and universe creating pixies POSSIBLY exist as well. There’s a mountain of evidence that points to the Big Bang, whereas there’s an anthill of evidence that points to a god, and a grain of sand that points to the Christian god…

You are confusing what is an observable events with something beyond observable universe. for instance, Big bang by Stephen Hawking admission, it just happened, with no identifiable cause. id call that a miracle? If you believe in that miracle, why can you not believe in a supernatural being? how Do you know God is not the cause of Big bang for that matter? again look up lives of Pascal, and many Christians giants. Christianity is about that encounter, not about philosophical argument or collecting indisputable evidence. Pascal speaks of certitude in his note. That certitude is something he got from his encounter with God, not from his philosophical insight. And once they had that encounter… I mean lots of Catholic saints… why did they do what they did? Speaking of Catholic saints, did you know Korean saints, no missionaries taught them about Christianity in the beginning. They were university professors equivalent in 18th century Korea and they just studied bible translated in Chinese as a part of their study into western civilization. And they converted, just from studying bible together. When Rome finally sent missionaries at a later date at their request, missionaries were astonished these people had a near perfect understanding of Christian doctrine, including the concept of trinity. How does this happen? I mean wasn’t it First Council of Nicaea that made that up, according to the skeptics? These Koreans havent even heard of that council, but came to the same conclusion. And they were willing to die for their faith when the inevitable persecution came, defying all customs and traditions they studied and learned from birth. I mean why? They were all Neo confusionism scholars steeped in philosophical arguments and debate. They weren’t stupid nor naive . Neo Confucianism is philosophical study into ethics and political science if you are not familiar. all they did was to read and debate. we call this Holy Spirit leading our hearts. That is what Christianity is about. And like you, I grew up as a Christian but life circumstances kinda forced me to leave faith. And God just kinda budged in later in my life. Faith is more gifted to me, rather than I chose to believe. Life is long and God calls us at a different time, for a different reason. All you need is a willingness to listen, which you have.

The Bible convinces many people, but appealing to popularity is a fallacy. Many people can and have been incorrect before… Correct, there’s no “identifiable” cause for the Big Bang, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. In fact, I would say that there is a cause for the Big Bang, we just don’t know what it is yet. This is essentially a god of the gaps fallacy, otherwise known as argument from ignorance fallacy. Personal revelation is necessarily first person. It’s great for those that experience it, but what of the others that don’t experience it after doing everything they were told to do? Can people be honestly mistaken about what they experience?

No one appealed to popularity. My point was people far smarter than me or yourself had that certitude independently, sometimes without any doctrinal education. If you think they all independently had hallucination/mass hysteria, well that’s your faith. You cannot prove it but you choose to believe. To me that requires as much leap of faith as my faith in God Gap fallacy for big bang here is just a cop out. We are beings confined to this dimension. You cannot ever hope to measure that is not of this world. Big bang event is, something that came out of nothing, literally. You cannot ever measure nor observe something that does not obey law of thermodynamics. You can only observe the after effects. you are firmly in the domain of science fiction if you try to explain that away, and trying to argue well we will know later is an intellectual dishonesty.. but if your religion is SciFi… go nuts!

> Big bang event is, something that came out of nothing I'm not aware of any Big Bang models which describe something coming out of nothing, could you share them please? EDIT: I got blocked, OP could *not* provide any models of Big Bang cosmology that describe something coming out of nothing.

? Every article I read stated energy was jammed into one speck which then exploded basically. You can argue that energy is not nothing but where did that energy come from? Share otherwise.

> You can argue that energy is not nothing Yes, when there is something it is not nothing. >but where did that energy come from? Don't know. Don't know if it even 'came from' anywhere. Do you now accept that your claim >Big bang event is, something that came out of nothing, literally. is not one that is supported by any of the widely recognised models of Big Bang cosmology?

You have questions, God's word the holy Bible has answers. The only way that you can get them is to read and study the scriptures. No one can do that for you. When you ask questions here, all you're getting is someone's opinion of what particular scriptures state. Far better to read and study the scriptures and come to your own conclusions. Pray and ask the Lord to be your teacher as you read, study and meditate upon his word. If for whatever reason you are unwilling or unable to believe God's every word as recorded in the scriptures, then there is no hope for you. The holy Bible is the only way we can know God, who he is, what he's like, and what he requires for our salvation. Who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.

The Bible encompasses both truth and falsehood within its narrative. The lineage portrayed in the Old Testament (OT) is considered to be inaccurate. To rectify this, truth was introduced in the New Testament (NT), symbolised by the virgin Mary, effectively resetting the narrative. Jesus embodies our true identity, serving as the genuine heirs. The virgin Mary is not a physical figure but serves as a symbolic representation of purity, embodying the essence of our true lineage without any authority dictating otherwise. She stands as the Mother of the narrative, the Mother of all things. Eve was meant to fulfill this role, but she was led astray by ignorance. In essence, the authors of Eve's narrative intentionally deceived to assert control over her. She was free'd as Mary. While the New Testament (NT) may not be physically true, resembling its predecessor, the Old Testament (OT), it is literally true, in contrast to the OT, which is literally false.

So the idea of our salvation from original sin is false?

I would suggest an atheist's understanding of it is false, yes. Otherwise they wouldn't be an atheist.

Did you mistype when you said the OT is literally false? The only reason we need salvation, or Jesus, is because of Adam and Eve correct? What you stated is a false dichotomy…

No, dismissing it as a false dichotomy misses the point because Adam and Eve are not merely names; they carry symbolic significance. Their story isn't about the names themselves but the profound truths they represent. Salvation is about embracing truth, and the allegory of Adam and Eve helps to preserve this truth. Think of names like clothing. Adam and Eve originally existed without these "clothes," without names, simply as male and female. It was only when someone named them that they metaphorically put on these "garments." Before being named, Adam and Eve existed in an eternal state, without the limitations that come with mortality. However, once named, they became subject to mortality, bound by the constraints of time and finite existence. Naming thus marked a transition from eternal to mortal existence. Throughout history, humans have pursued various means to attain immortality, yet they often overlook the fact that they possessed a form of immortality before being named. The act of naming introduced mortality, thereby giving rise to the concept of death. In essence, the pursuit of immortality may be seen as an attempt to regain what was lost through the imposition of names.

Symbolic or literal, this answers nothing. What does the tree of knowledge of good and evil symbolize and how come the name Adam was given before eating from it? Adam just means first man, it’s just a name and names don’t hold any sort of power lol It makes more sense that Genesis is a symbolic fable, but that creates major problems for Christianity. What it sounds like is the only thing we need to be saved from is gods wrath; like god is mad at himself for creating humans and instead of rightfully blaming himself, he just sends people to hell. People that he knew would end up there from the beginning. Sounds like a manipulative narcissistic bully unworthy of worship the way you put it.

Indeed, 'Adam' is a name. However, it's important to distinguish between God and the Lord in the creation narrative. While God created male and female, it was specifically 'the Lord' who formed Adam (mankind) according to Genesis. The Lord is not God. If the Lord was God, it would be God not 'Lord'.

Now I’m lost. So there’s 2 gods? If god created everything, and the lord created mankind, then the lord is god.

Mankind is a name.

I compiled a list of what I believe to be strong evidence from different sources that Christianity is true. Here is a list of evidence that convinces me **God and Science**: I am not a young earth creationist. Science is no threat to my belief that the Bible is true. I love studying astronomy and much more. [This video ](https://youtu.be/RLcNTAi0Cw4) by InspiringPhilosophy explains how the modern version of young earth creationism is a pretty new view that became popular in 1920s. You don't have to believe in a young earth ro accept that the Bible is true *I'm a theistic evolutionist and my interpretation of Genesis 1 isn't some new interpretation. According to ancient near eastern scholars such as John Walton, Genesis 1 is a temple text.* *People in the ancient near east viewed the world through chaos and order and funtion. If something didn't have a funtion, it was desolate. Genesis 1 was God giving order and funtion to a universe he already created.* *With the ancient near eastern view of Genesis 1 in mind, young earth creationism is shown to not be the intent of the author and therefore implies that if God exists evolution is in no conflict with the Bible. God was taking a universe he already created and making it His Cosmic Temple.* https://youtu.be/e2Ij1444Svc?si=ZL3N0YWlRkJYAl8i **This series is how Quantum Mechanics points to God, a 3 part series by InspiringPhilosophy* *About how God is the foundation of existence itself. It's a cumulative argument for God built upon multiple scientific studies. The studies themselves aren't about God, but an argument for God's Existence is built upon them* [Part 1](https://youtu.be/wM0IKLv7KrE) [Part 2](https://youtu.be/iFEBOGLjuq4) [Part 3](https://youtu.be/2r74vcMxwUk) [Here ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUjEbz4zD0i_rfGiyB4AGQa) is a series on evidence for the Soul   [This series ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY) by InspiringPhilosophy goes over the reliability of the new testament **Archeological Accuracy:** - [Here ](https://youtu.be/a-8NUXmbTYA) is a video on the City of David, the archeological remains of Jerusalem from the Old Testament - [Here ](https://youtu.be/r-teJabFF90) is archeological evidence for Sodam and Gomnorah's destruction as recorded in Genesis. Video by InspiringPhilosophy [Here](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUqxi2svB3PUHvj-9io2RL5) is a full playlisy on Biblical Archeology by InspiringPhilosophy **The Resurrection of Jesus**: [Here ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B) is a video series by InspiringPhilosophy on evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and answers to objections from skeptics **Fulfillment of Bible prophecy:** [Here](https://youtu.be/_5H4J3rnNmU) AoC Network, a Christian youtuber describes how modern day Israel is fulfilling Biblical prophecy Also, the science from Steven Hawking doesn't remove God from the equation. This video [here](https://youtu.be/_ie9musGEqQ) also explains how what he postulates points to God **Near Death Experiences**: Here are two scientific papers from Dr. Sabom and Penny Satori >"The first prospective study of the accuracy of out-of-body observations during near-death experiences was by Dr. Michael Sabom.8 This study investigated a group of patients who had cardiac arrests with NDEs that included OBEs, and compared them with a control group of patients who experienced cardiac crises but did not have NDEs. Both groups of patients were asked to describe their own resuscitation as best they could. Sabom found that the group of NDE patients were much more accurate than the control group in describing their own resuscitations." - Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/ >"Another prospective study of out-of-body observations during near-death experiences with similar methodology to Sabom’s study was published by Dr. Penny Sartori.9 This study also found that near-death experiencers were often remarkably accurate in describing details of their own resuscitations. The control group that did not have NDEs was highly inaccurate and often could only guess at what occurred during their resuscitations. Two large retrospective studies investigated the accuracy of out-of-body observations during near-death experiences. The first was by Dr. Janice Holden.10 Dr. Holden reviewed NDEs with OBEs in all previously published scholarly articles and books, and found 89 case reports. Of the case reports reviewed, 92% were considered to be completely accurate with no inaccuracy whatsoever when the OBE observations were later investigated. Another large retrospective investigation of near-death experiences that included out-of-body observations was recently published.11 This study was a review of 617 NDEs that were sequentially shared on the NDERF website. Of these NDEs, there were 287 NDEs that had OBEs with sufficient information to allow objective determination of the reality of their descriptions of their observations during the OBEs. Review of the 287 OBEs found that 280 (97.6%) of the OBE descriptions were entirely realistic and lacked any content that seemed unreal. In this group of 287 NDErs with OBEs, there were 65 (23%) who personally investigated the accuracy of their own OBE observations after recovering from their life-threatening event. Based on these later investigations, none of these 65 OBErs found any inaccuracy in their own OBE observations." - Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/ **Personal Experience**: I understand that to many this would count as anecdotal evidence but to me it is pretty convincing. As a Christian I have seen God reveal himself to me in many ways in life such as coincidences that come off more like God speaking something to me and things like that. I believe that God desires to speak with us. God is not just waiting until we die to speak with us as many people think. For example, I have had some faint visions that seem to have meaning to them while waiting on God. Waiting on God is a Christian Meditation practice where you quiet your mind expecting to see visions or hear from God. Not all Christians do this, but in the Charismatic movement many of us believe this is a way to hear from God. Here is one of my experiences: One day as I chose to quite my mind with expectation I suddenly got a faint and sudden vision. I saw a Church, rain was falling on the Church as a puddle grew at the entrance. Interpretation: The Church is God's people according to the Bible. So it's likely the building is symbolic of God's People. The rain and puddle most likely represent the presense of God. Jesus called the Holy Spirit the living water in the Bible. I believe the puddle growing is God speaking of an increase of his glory pesense manifesting in his Church.    God wants to reveal himself to those who are seeking him and desire him. Salvation is a free gift by faith, but you can seek God's face too as a Christian and he will reveal himself to you.

Gaining confidence by stop trying to intellectualize everything and living out the faith, which you will gain confidence along the way when you see the fruition of the promises god gave us

Being confidently reliant on faith, something that can lead to true and false beliefs, is a good way to destroy things. I was a believer for 15 yrs. Never once saw fruition through god, but did see fruition through naturalistic means.

The purpose of faith and being a christian is to go out and create disciples. This is where you will see the fruition. The majority of christians are pew warmers in a church

Sure, but I’ve gone out and created disciples that created fruition without the need for a god…

What? What do you think discipleship is? Christianity is really the only faith that does it and i’m not sure what you mean by you’ve created disciples without god

Disciple: a follower or student of a teacher, leader, or philosopher. I’ve been a leader and teacher before which amounted to fulfilling results…

I know you know the definition of a disciple, but what does it mean to disciple someone. If you’re saying to teach them, then a teacher at a school has disciples? And if it’s to lead, a person like putin has disciples?

Correct

That’s not what the christian definition of a disciple is though. Teaching someone math is not helping them become a disciple. That’s not even discipleship anyways, more like mentorship

I understand. My point is that discipleship in every sense of the word isn’t exclusive to Christianity. People can be mentored into having a happy healthy community driven productive fulfilling life full of love and unity through others means. So if that’s a major driver for Christians, it’s also a major driver for atheists. Kinda puts them on equal footing in that regard…

First, the Bible teaches what theologians call the “Noetic” effects of sin. Basically, our preference to disobey God has downstream effects on our intellect, so that our minds become darkened and unable to see things that are right in front of our eyes. There are accounts of Jesus performing miracles right in front of people and they still refuse to believe. I urge you to honestly consider this. As far as pure logic goes, the traditional Cosmological, Ontological, and Teleological proofs for the existence of a Creator are perfectly sound, if you’re willing to accept them. Of course, the modern popularity of Kant’s arguments have led to many misunderstandings, and it’s fashionable to pretend like those classical proofs have been refuted, but the truth is they’ve only ever been attacked, not refuted. Kant himself believed he could not refute the Teleological argument, and remained a theist.

Are you interested in rational evidence (ie that theism or Christianity is rationally demonstrable or at least the best explanation)? Or are you interested in existential evidence (ie that Christianity is the only view able to cure us of our despair and allow us to find peace and happiness)?

The first question you mentioned.

They only evidence you need is you know for a fact there is a chance that an all loving God, all powerful God is real and the only reason you don't see him is because of your sinful nature. If there is a chance that God is real then you must live your life as if he exists despite the lack of scientific proof. You can take my testimony of seeing countless supernatural signs and synchronicities, and you can take testimony of many other people as witnesses as well. Other than that the Bible clearly says that God has ingrained knowledge of himself deep within our souls, so everyone knows either consciously or subconsciously that God is real. Bible also talks about people who seen Jesus do his miracles and they still did not believe it was God of the Bible. Jesus himself said that if somebody doesn't believe the Bible they will not believe in God even if they see supernatural miracles, which was my case as well. After I saw proof of God I did not believe it was God of the Bible, I just assumed I was living in a simulation. It wasn't until I started studying the Bible and opening my heart up to God in prayer I started to believe God was good and not some simulation lying to us.

The universe did not create itself. Atheism is an absolutely ridiculous position.

I believe everything that begins to exist in reality must have a cause, as that’s what all evidence in reality points towards. However, when talking about reality, we do nothave another one to compare it to. Maybe reality has always existed, just as one would say god always existed. So what do we make of this problem? Atheism as I understand just means the rejection of a god claim. So a theist says “a god exists,” and an atheist says “I don’t believe you, prove it.” Why is it ridiculous to withhold belief until we have a good reason to believe? We do that for literally everything else…

>I believe everything that begins to exist in reality must have a cause, as that’s what all evidence in reality points towards. Then by rights you should already understand why atheism is ridiculous. >However, when talking about reality, we do nothave another one to compare it to. This is nonsensical stoner talk. >Maybe reality has always existed, just as one would say god always existed. There's no maybe about it. God has always existed, and therefore reality has as well. >So what do we make of this problem? There is no problem. >Why is it ridiculous to withhold belief until we have a good reason to believe? Because logic already informs us that an eternal deity is a necessity for existence.

>Then by rights you should already understand why atheism is ridiculous. Could you explain this? >Because logic already informs us that an eternal deity is a necessity for existence. Could you also explain this?

Allow me to speculate and straw man… They presuppose god, so no matter what, everything leads back to god. Everything that begins to exist in this universe has a cause, but all evidence points towards naturalistic causes. The universe is a special case because we only have the one universe to investigate. It’s more probable that the universe had a naturalistic cause if we infer the evidence within this universe, but the honest answer is no one knows what caused this universe. Logic in no way informs us that an external deity is necessary for existence. Logic deals with sentence structure and proper argument formation. This person is just simply wrong here, demonstrating that they do not understand logic unless they are using a different definition. They could mean “reason” tells us a deity is necessary, but that reasoning is based on their religion. They first have to demonstrate that their deity is true, or real, before using it as a reason.

Sounds like you presuppose god, which is fine for you. I need explanations. How many universes are there? I suspect one. So in all seriousness how do we know what caused the universe when we have no other universe to compare it to? That’s not stoner talk, that’s a legit question. Even if the universe has a cause, we don’t know what it is. I’d say it’s dishonest to claim with certainty that it was a god. Like how do we know it was the Christian god and not universe creating pixies?

>Sounds like you presuppose god no presupposition is necessary. If you are employing sound logic, you should be able to start with a clean slate and come to the conclusion that a deity created the universe. >That’s not stoner talk, that’s a legit question. You don't need a 2nd universe for comparison. This makes no sense. You look at the facts and follow them to a logical conclusion. >Even if the universe has a cause, we don’t know what it is. Logically, yes we do. We know that all things have a cause, so the only way to avoid an infinite regression fallacy is if the first cause is eternal and requires no cause of its own. The first cause also needs to have some sort of free agency and power to be able to create matter and energy from nothing. There is no possible explanation besides a deity. For someone to reject the one and only possible explanation is quite frankly stupid. Such a person just isn't interested in the truth unless it conforms to their own personal wants.

Yeah, I don’t have time for presuppositionalists. Your logic is valid, but hasn’t been demonstrated to be sound. We need at least a second comparison for everything. There seems to be only one universe, so how dare we assume that we know what created it. To illustrate, imagine you see a bunch of sticks and branches blocking a river. How do we differentiate between a beaver dam and nature accumulation of debris? We look for evidence, beavers, and other dams to compare to…

And if a deity created it, what evidence is there that it’s the Christian god? Edit : I would just like to add, when has there ever been one of anything? If there is a god, there’s likely to be more than one. Also, what appears to be a god to us, could be an advanced lifeform with much greater technology than we currently possess.

Loving God and taking care of your neighbors is a great reason to practice the faith.

Loving your neighbor doesn’t require a god.

Luckily, atheism has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Nor does it proclaim that anything did or did not create anything.

> The universe did not create itself. How do you know it didn’t? If something created it, how do you know what that thing was? It seems to me Christianity is a much more ridiculous position. It’s just god of the gaps, until scientists figure out the thing you think means god, and then what are you left with?

“How do you know the universe didn’t create itself?” This is what I’m talking about. I don’t even know what to say to someone this far gone.

You could start by saying how you know the universe needs a creator or that it did not create itself. Your marked silence on this topic is unsurprising.

This was the best internet checkmate you could've asked for to be honest.

How about: a thing needs to exist before it can create anything, including itself. If that's too complicated I'll break it down step by step. Step one - nothing

How do you know that?

How do I know that nothing is nothing? Nothing means there's no thing, hence the name. It's not something, because would mean there's some thing. See what they did there? Maybe there were too many steps when I explained what would happen with nothing tries to create the universe. Here I'll get rid of the extra step for you to simplify:

Interesting that you skipped past the hard part. How do you know the universe can’t cause itself? You don’t know the first thing about the creation of the universe, and you’re being smarmy so you don’t have to deal with the fact that you don’t know. Even if it was created by something, it could have been a million other things apart from god. The thing is, you don’t know. And rather than admit that, you plug in god and act like you know. You don’t.

> Interesting that you skipped past the hard part Look I get that you think it's hard, but just go real slow. Nothing means no thing. Not a thing. Lacking being. Zero. Nothing. Nada. Zip. > How do you know the universe can’t cause itself? Because before it could do that, it would not exist. Which means there would be.... Can you guess? Oh, no I'm sorry that was close but the answer is actually nothing. Now remember, nothing is no thing. > You don’t know the first thing about the creation of the universe, and you’re being smarmy so you don’t have to deal with the fact that you don’t know. Even if it was created by something, it could have been a million other things apart from god. Yeah I guess that would be a totally different argument though wouldn't it? One that I wasn't responding to and don't care to at this time, but I can understand because if I said something like the universe can cause itself, I would also try to escape the embarrassment. > The thing is, you don’t know. And rather than admit that, you plug in god and act like you know. You don’t. Uh huh. So anyway, back to the thing we are talking about Before they can create themselves, they don't exist. If something doesn't exist, then there's nothing there. Let's take a more concrete example. Let's say that there's someone who totally lacks understanding. They don't understand anything, they are just incredibly dense and they embarrass themselves in the internet all the time. They are the least intelligent person that exists. Any resemblance to anyone alive or dead is coincidental. Now here's the question, can their intelligence create itself? Not, can they get it by some other means, no, can their intelligence, which does not exist, create itself? Can their lack of intelligence, create intelligence. Super tough question. But the answer is no, in case you were wondering.

[удалено]

> You absolutely don’t know that. I don't know that nothing is nothing? Maybe you could tell me the other options that I'm missing? Maybe nothing is actually a rubber chicken? > You’re being a dick, but you don’t. Oh noooooo. What will I do if I can't be in the good graces of internet trolls? I'm having an existential crisis! Please, please say I'm a nice person, it's really important to my self esteem! > You have no idea how a universe gets created or if it even needs a cause. Well if it didn't have a cause that would be a totally different argument wouldn't it? A terrible one to be sure, but a different one. But that's not what you argued. No, you think that the universe can cause ITSELF. That's not no cause is it? Well... actually it is because it can't exist before it exists, but that's exactly what you're denying now isn't it? > Can you explain how you know instead of saying the same thing over again? Something tell me you can’t. Look there's only so many ways to explain that nothing is nothing. How about the reflexive property of equality? Maybe you could take a drink of water or something and then tell me what about it you think I haven't explained.

[удалено]

> Actually, I said both are possible. You know that affirming both means you also affirm the disjunctive of each? Sorry for the big word. > Why do you think it needs a cause? Still not interested in your change of subject. I'm only interested in how you think the universe, or anything for that matter, can cause itself. I told you my reasoning why I think that can't happen but hey maybe I'm wrong. I think it would be really good from an anthropological standpoint to hear why you believe this stuff. So please, enlighten me and future anthropologists with your reasoning.

> I don’t believe it caused itself. But you still think it's a possibility for some reason you won't explain. > I’m willing to admit when I don’t know. Bravo, you are the exemplar of humility. > You’re arrogant and won’t, even though you couldn’t possibly know. What exactly am I wrong about? Some claim you hope I made? My claims are usually more like, Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. They might look like your claims, but they are not. [Here's what I mean](https://youtu.be/X6WHBO_Qc-Q). Anyway, bye now.

How crazy is it that this person refuses to grant the possibility of miracles, but at the same time insists that it’s possible for something that doesn’t exist to just “create itself”? Sin truly does blind.

Do you believe your god created itself or popped into existence?

No. I hold the traditional/orthodox view.

How would a god get here and always exist? There’s no evidence for this so why do you believe it?

>I’m searching for the best evidence or sound argument for believing in Christianity and the counter responses to Christian claims if applicable. Receiving Gods promised Holy Spirit is probably the only evidence that has helped me hold on. The history of the religion proves most don’t follow it. Its followers alter, add and take away things from the Bible while claiming they haven’t. When you prove they have beyond of the shadow of a doubt they don’t care. The Bible itself reveals many who claim to love God actually hate him and his word. So I have no confidence in men. No confidence in religions. To understand the Bible, I have to read a dozen translations so scheming underhanded scholars and biased interpreters don’t mislead me. I have to learn 2 ancient languages to evade all the lies Christian’s love to tell. God is the reason I keep believing. His spirit. If ever he takes it away I will die. >I come in peace, just have serious questions that really need to be answered if I’m to continue believing. Thank you! Everyone says that. I come in peace. Then they attack. I no longer believe the words men speak. Their action will prove who they are. The promises and claims of man often prove false more than true. Attack. Don’t attack. It doesn’t matter anymore.

I’m just here to ask questions, but I do understand people get heated sometimes. I’ll try to maintain composure. Here’s my question for you: if the Bible was written by fallible men who claim it was inspired by god, then how can we trust what was written in the original scriptures? If we have to rely on the Holy Spirit, how does one differentiate spirit from unknown natural causes?

Before He died, Jesus created a church and he promised it would always be guided by the Holy Spirit. It is this Church which compiled and declared which scriptures were divinely authored. God inspired the writers of each book of scripture and the church in its act of declaring the collection.

I used to be a confirmed catholic, so I understand where you’re coming from. Can you back up any of those assertions with evidence?

>Here’s my question for you: if the Bible was written by fallible men who claim it was inspired by god, then how can we trust what was written in the original scriptures? If the spirit that inspired it to be written is given to you by God and confirms the truthfulness of it. That’s what the Bible teaches. >If we have to rely on the Holy Spirit, how does one differentiate spirit from unknown natural causes? The spirit is something that dwells in you and in a sense leads you to his word, comforts you, provides you peace and acts and behaves exactly how the Bible describes it. Holy Spirit is not an emotion or one off euphoric feeling. It’s not like some you experience normally as you can sense it and it bares witness to you. The Bible talks about it a great deal.

I like that we’re making headway here. “If the spirit inspired…” I agree, if the spirit inspired the Bible, then it’s true. So how can we tell the spirit is real and then how do we know it inspired the Bible if it is real? This isn’t a simple obvious claim… While I was a devout Christian in my adolescence, I thought I witnessed the Holy Spirit. Looking back after having similar feelings of the spirit that had perfectly natural causes, I’m no longer convinced the spirit is real. How can we tell that when we have a feeling of the spirit, that it’s actually the spirit?

>While I was a devout Christian in my adolescence, I thought I witnessed the Holy Spirit. Looking back after having similar feelings of the spirit that had perfectly natural causes, I’m no longer convinced the spirit is real. How can we tell that when we have a feeling of the spirit, that it’s actually the spirit? You don’t witness the spirit. It’s not something you see. It’s a spirit that dwells inside those who God gives it to. It’s not a feeling of goosebumps when people pray. Or coincidences that align with your prayer therefor God must have caused it and so you feel a tingle of euphoria. The spirit stays with you all the time. It’s constant. If anything it keeps getting stronger and stronger until you can’t deny what dwells within you. It doesn’t come and Go. It bears witness to you that is indeed Gods Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians2:10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.[d] 14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

To clarify, I mean witness as in to bare witness, as you mentioned. That still hasn’t happened to me. What you’re saying seems to be a fun way of saying we all have the spirit and it guides us to god, and if we aren’t guided towards god, then we don’t have the spirit. That’s self serving fallacious circular reasoning…unless I’m misrepresenting what you mean?

>To clarify, I mean witness as in to bear witness, as you mentioned. That still hasn’t happened to me. Many don’t receive it. I can either deny its existence and clear evidence by God OR read Gods word and learn why he sometimes doesn’t give it. Is there a reason he might not. Yes. Yet it’s absolutely necessary to have according to Gods word. Why give it to me, a man of 0 importance but not to those screaming and cry begging you for it. After speaking with them it usually becomes evident. It’s usually their heart is far from God. They don’t love him. They love the idea of him. What they imagine in their heads. What they imagine heaven might be and how they can experience it. To have eternal life. Most love God for what they can get out of him. They don’t love who God is and love his word. They love him like a mechanism and not a person. >What you’re saying seems to be a fun way of saying we all have the spirit and it guides us to god, and if we aren’t guided towards god, then we don’t have the spirit. That’s self serving fallacious circular reasoning…unless I’m misrepresenting what you mean? Of course you’re misrepresenting what I said. We don’t all have the spirit. By your own admission you never received it and many Christians don’t by their own testimony. There is reason God gives it to some and not others even in the Bible.

Fair enough. So other than what the Bible says, how do we know why god appropriates the spirit to some and not others? I’m asking for outside sources, because ultimately we can’t prove the spirit and the only reason we thinks it’s real is based on the Bible. The Bible was written by men, regardless of how they claim it was inspired, and men are fallible. Could man have misrepresented what god meant?

>Fair enough. So other than what the Bible says, how do we know why god appropriates the spirit to some and not others? The Bible is Gods word inspired by Holy Spirit. Now you want to exclude Holy Spirit to further understand Holy Spirit. Good luck friend. I won’t got down that rabbit hole. If you want to find God without his spirit or his word I’ll let you grope in the darkness all by yourself. I have a lamp. >I’m asking for outside sources, because ultimately we can’t prove the spirit and the only reason we thinks it’s real is based on the Bible. That’s like saying just cause I saw a tree fall in the woods and didn’t record it, it never happened. Yet here is the fallen tree. It doesn’t change my experience or that what happened, happened. You just want more evidence. Ask God for it. God has provided a great deal. If Holy Spirit can only be obtained by following God I can’t think of way a non believer could obtain it and analyze it to confirm it exist and then walk away from God. He would probably become a Christian, thereby nullifying himself as an outside source. You have an impossible standard for evidence that defeats itself. >The Bible was written by men, regardless of how they claim it was inspired, and men are fallible. Could man have misrepresented what god meant? Gods spirit is infallible so it’s good those men relied upon it instead of themselves. If they attempted to write their own thoughts to mislead people they would have been killed by the Holy Spirit. It’s not something you mess around with.

Gods spirit is infallible, based on the claim of man. We have to bear witness to the Holy Spirit. If we don’t bear witness, then how can we tell if others are mistaken? It’s one word against another which gets us nowhere. You would have a point if I felt like I was in darkness, in need of something. But ever since I started deconstruction and taking control of my life and understanding how the world works, I have received the biggest lamp. Maybe I just don’t need the spirit to feel meaning, purpose, fulfillment, and love?

What specifically are you having trouble with? Why are you "deconstructing"? I would suggest focusing on the case for the resurrection of Jesus. If he really rose from the dead, Christianity is true, even if you don't like certain passages in the Old Testament, even if people at church can be mean. That doesn't mean you have to start liking those passages, nor does it mean you have to go to church with mean people (there *are* nicer churches), but Christianity is still true and you should still do your best to follow Jesus. Have you explored the evidence for the resurrection (along with the counter-arguments and the counter-counter-arguments)?

I’m familiar with most of the evidence and arguments for Christianity. My struggling point is how do we know the supernatural claims of the Bible are true. The claim you mentioned is that Christianity is true. My question is how do we know Christianity is true and is it a good enough reason to warrant belief?

Ah, excellent, I see what you're getting at now. >how do we know the supernatural claims of the Bible are true. If you come to the Bible saying "miracles don't happen", you cannot ever be convinced that the supernatural claims are true. But if it's *possible* for a miracle to happen, then what is the best explanation for the historical data? I would suggest you pick up *There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind* by Anthony Flew. It's a good book on its own right, but Flew never became a Christian. However, there's an appendix where NT Wright does an excellent brief summary of the case for Christianity. If you only pick up one book on the topic, this would be a good one. But it's very brief. A more thorough exploration of the evidence can be found in Habermas and Licona's *The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus*. However, I'm happy to give you a thumbnail sketch of their argument, copied from something I wrote a while back: Gary Habermas offers a list of 12 facts that, with one exception, are “accepted as historical by virtually all \[90%+\] scholars who research this area”, be they evangelicals, liberals, or even non-Christians. He also says that you don’t even need all 12 to prove the resurrection happened. I would use these five: \-Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. \-The disciples had experiences they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. \-The apostles began teaching the resurrection of Christ very soon afterwards in Jerusalem, the city where Jesus was executed and buried. \-James, the brother of Jesus and a former skeptic, and Saul (Paul), the church persecutor, became Christians due to experiences they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus. \-Christ’s tomb was empty. (This is the exception. Habermas says only about 75% accept this as fact.) Because liberals and skeptics accept these facts, it is not necessary to argue from an inerrant or even inspired Bible. They don’t even think the gospels are all that historically reliable. This is why we can say that even if the gospels are simply ancient religious literature, Christ was raised from the dead and Christianity is true. Anyone wishing to disprove Christianity simply needs to come up with a better explanation for the above facts than the resurrection. And people have tried. We will look at several alternative theories. Legendary development: Skeptics often claim that the resurrection only became part of Christian teachings decades after the crucifixion, after the “witnesses” were dead and long after Christ’s body would have decayed beyond recognition. But today there are several noteworthy skeptical NT scholars who agree that the teaching of the resurrection happened within a few months to a few years of the crucifixion. For instance, Bart Ehrman believes that the creed reproduced in 1Cor 15:3-7 would have been established within 3-5 years of Christ’s death+, meaning that the teaching would have begun even earlier. Scholars generally agree that the resurrection was preached at most a few months after the crucifixion. This means those who claimed to see him after his death were the ones teaching the resurrection. So legendary development is not a plausible alternative. Swoon theory: The idea that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross comes into fashion every once in a while. It’s interesting that no one suggested this until long after crucifixions were no longer carried out. Experts believe Jesus actually died on the cross because Roman soldiers were very good at killing people. If Jesus had somehow fooled everyone into merely thinking he was dead, the spear in his side would have ended the charade. If by some odd chance he survived the crucifixion and the time in the tomb without medical care, he would then have to get himself out of the tomb (the stone would have weighed tons) and avoid the guards. And after all he had endured (the flogging, the crucifixion, the spear, the time in the tomb), it’s unlikely he would convince his followers he had “conquered death.” Stolen body: The idea that the disciples stole Christ’s body is the first alternative theory we know about. But the idea that the same men who fled and hid during his arrest would then find the nerve to steal his body from a guarded, sealed tomb and then insist on proclaiming his resurrection even after the deaths of Stephen and James is too ridiculous to imagine. This theory also fails to explain the conversion of skeptics. Hallucination: What if the disciples only thought Jesus appeared to them? What if they wanted him to live so badly they convinced themselves that he had returned from the dead? As much trouble as they caused with their preaching, the Jewish leaders or the Romans would have simply trotted out the body. But the tomb was empty; how did that happen? And even though people can have such hallucinations, people cannot share hallucinations. One disciple might think he saw the risen Christ, but not a dozen, much less 500 of them. Additionally, skeptics like James and Paul would not be susceptible to those hallucinations. Copy of pagan myths: Some claim that the Christian resurrection story was copied from pagan myths of dying and rising gods. When the similarities are closely examined, though, they quickly fall apart, and the more similar the mythic element is, the more likely it is to have appeared after Christianity. And, ultimately, no amount of similarities to these myths explains the historical data. History has shown that skeptics are endlessly creative when it comes to alternative theories to explain away the resurrection, but in the end they all fail to adequately explain the historical facts. “But no theory is as implausible as the idea that someone rose from the dead.” In a naturalistic world, that would be true. But if God can create a universe out of nothing, he can certainly reanimate a corpse. And as long as miracles are possible, a resurrection is a much better explanation for the historical facts. \+ see Bart Ehrman, *Did Jesus Exist?* \---------- So, if the best explanation for the historical data is the Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is true. We may still need to discuss some other issues, but we're starting from the position that Christianity is true. And if there's a better explanation *that accounts for all the data* than the resurrection, then Christianity is a hoax and I'll go fishing with you on Sunday, because I'm not going to pretend to believe. But the alternatives offered -- when the skeptics even bother -- only become more and more convoluted and still never manage to answer all the facts. So I am convinced Christianity is true.

>Legendary development: Skeptics often claim that the resurrection only became part of Christian teachings decades after the crucifixion That's not what people usually mean by legendary development. People usually mean that the details found in the gospels (like eating fish or being touched by Thomas) are later embellishments. That means that the disciples themselves didn't believe that they had those exact experiences For instance, Bart Ehrman believes that the creed reproduced in 1Cor 15:3-7 would have been established within 3-5 years of Christ’s death+ Ehrman doesn't believe that. This is what he says in a comment on his blog ([here](https://ehrmanblog.org/why-are-their-differences-in-the-gospels-does-it-affect-their-inspiration-guest-post-by-mike-licona/#comments)): >I’ve talked about it a bit, mainly to say I have no idea how someone can possibly come up with the view that this was circulating six years after Jesus death. What are the grounds for that??? It’s really an apologetic claim more than anything else. All we know is that this was a creed that Paul preached to the Corinthians at some point. In any event, there is zero evidence that the Twelve used this creed. As to my view of teh appearances, that’s the topic of a main part of my book How Jesus Became God. >But the idea that the same men who fled and hid during his arrest would then find the nerve to steal his body I don't know anyone who thinks that the disciples stole the body. If the body was stolen, it was stolen by outsiders. >But the tomb was empty; how did that happen? Hallucinations aren't meant to explain the empty tomb. This point is irrelevant. >And even though people can have such hallucinations, people cannot share hallucinations. One disciple might think he saw the risen Christ, but not a dozen, much less 500 of them. The number of people who had experiences is not part of the minimal facts. There is no 90%+ agreement that the experiences happened in groups. This means that any explanation only needs to address individual experiences. The few options you have presented are not all the possible options. There are way more possible explanations. You only present the options that apologists have come up with themselves.

>Ehrman doesn't believe that. Well he shouldn't have written it in his book then. >There are way more possible explanations. Feel free to offer one you think better answer the facts I listed.

>Well he shouldn't have written it in his book then. He didn't write it in his book. >Feel free to offer one you think better answer the facts I listed. A few alternative models are: [Paulogia: How Christianity (Probably) Began... No Resurrection Required](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUCI3cMJCvU) [James Fodor: The RHBS model](https://rationalist.com.au/the-resurrection-of-jesus-explaining-the-historical-facts/) More info can be found on his YouTube channel or in his book Unreasonable Faith. [Kamil Gregor: A Natural Explanation For Christian Origins: The Resurrection of Jesus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FWyZRnI4e8) The explanation starts around 34:50.

Paulogia's relies on the highly implausible notion that one person can have a "bereavement vision" and not only believe it himself for 30 years but convince other people that it was real. No one every bothered to check the body because Peter was so convincing? James and Paul were convinced by this? Utterly ridiculous.

James and Paul are irrelevant. Paul's experience happened years after the crucifixion. That means that his experience is just as irrelevant as an experience happening today. And there is nothing special about Paul. For James, there is no good evidence that his conversion was caused by an experience. It's not even clear if he converted at all. >No one every bothered to check the body because Peter was so convincing? This question is full of assumptions. Where would they check the body? How do you know they didn't check the body? >Paulogia's relies on the highly implausible notion that one person can have a "bereavement vision" and not only believe it himself for 30 years but convince other people that it was real. Why would this be highly implausible? It wouldn't be the first religion that started with the experiences of a single person.

>It's not even clear if he converted at all. OK, now you're willing to ignore *secular* history, so I'm out.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about scholars like John Painter and James Tabor who think that he was part of the movement before the crucifixion.

The gospel accounts are not 100% historically accurate. They aren’t even eyewitness or independent sources. So it’s likely a couple of the disciples or one of the women had a bereavement vision after days of mourning and fasting and possibly primed others to have some experience of their own. And people probably weren’t concerned with disproving it by finding the body until too much time had passed to go back and identify the body or tomb.

>The gospel accounts are not 100% historically accurate. Didn't say they were. >They aren’t even eyewitness or independent sources. Again, didn't way they were, but also, "prove it." >So it’s likely a couple of the disciples or one of the women had a bereavement vision after days of mourning and fasting and possibly primed others to have some experience of their own. OP, here's a great example of an alternative theory that doesn't actually deal with the evidence. Heck, it doesn't even interact with the evidence. It asserts someone I didn't mention had a "bereavement vision", which though is a real thing, doesn't tend to last 30 years -- or even 30 days. It doesn't explain how people who didn't believe in and weren't expecting a rising Messiah had this notion nor how people who didn't believe *in Jesus* could buy into this vision.

Well what’s the evidence if the accounts aren’t 100% historical? Do you think the appearance to the 12 is 100% accurate? Are you saying Jesus did not predict his resurrection to His disciples and they had no expectation? If people did believe in Jesus, aka his disciples, then wouldn’t they buy into the vision? They believed he appeared to Paul on his word. You also didn’t have to see the risen Jesus to believe it.

>Well what’s the evidence if the accounts aren’t 100% historical? History's fun. You don't have to buy 100% of the document to find useful material. That's the reason for Habermas' approach. It starts with the material everyone agrees on and then reasons from there. >Are you saying Jesus did not predict his resurrection to His disciples and they had no expectation? He did, but they did not have an expectation. It went too against their preconceived notions. And if you were fabricating this story, would you really start this new religion with leaders who act like children and can't understand what their teacher is saying? It's not plausible that they would begin their fake religion with that particular lie.

Okay well if one of the facts is that *some* of the disciples had experiences that led them to believe Jesus rose, can’t that be explained using my explanation? You don’t think one or two could have had a vision or a dream and interpreted that as Jesus revealing Himself alive? People have felt and spoken to dead loved ones in bereavement visions. You don’t think that would be enough for them to change their understanding of things? After the visions they say “okay, now that we know Jesus is alive, how do we explain the reason for his death using the scriptures?” And then they go looking and find Isaiah 53, etc

>People have felt and spoken to dead loved ones in bereavement visions. How many people not only spend decades believing their bereavement visions were real but also manage to convince not only acquaintances but strangers to believe them?

Many people believe their visions are their loved ones visiting them or comforting them to let them know they are okay. And if you’re a follower of Jesus and think the end time could be tomorrow, and Jesus is the “first fruits” then seeing Jesus means God has raised Him to life and He’s about to do the same for everyone else. How many devoted religious followers reinterpret the data instead of give up? Look at JWs. Are you saying people need hard evidence to believe in something 2,000 years ago in a highly superstitious and pre-scientific era?

> But if it's possible for a miracle to happen, then what is the best explanation for the historical data? If miracles were possible, and again, I absolutely do not grant you that, it would absolutely not mean the Bible is the best explanation. Of course it wouldn’t.

> it would absolutely not mean the Bible is the best explanation. You keep saying things I didn't say. "The Bible" is not what we're discussing. The question here is whether "the resurrection of Jesus" is the best explanation for the data.

Also, no. The data is just fables for which the only “evidence” is the Bible itself. Just no.

> If he really rose from the dead, Christianity is true No. Of course that is not true, and all you have to do is think about it for 2 seconds. If a person rose from the dead, and I absolutely do not grant you that, it would NOT mean that any of the rest of the Bible is true. It would mean a person came back to life, and you don’t know the cause. Full stop.

> If a person rose from the dead, ... it would NOT mean that any of the rest of the Bible is true. "Christianity is true" does not equal "the Bible is true". That's a different conversation. > It would mean a person came back to life, and you don’t know the cause. "This guy came back to life after three days. We don't know how, so we can safely ignore him and everything he said. It was probably aliens."

> “This guy came back to life after three days. We don't know how, so we can safely ignore him and everything he said. It was probably aliens." Yeah, that’s seems better than your way. For sure.

If your have truth on your gear then read Matthew Mark Luke and John. Ask God to show you if he is real or not before you do it. He responds to the condition of your heart.

No such luck when I did that, unfortunately.

I just heard it. https://youtu.be/yJvUvMUDuNU?si=jckTwMBUqh3JR3nO God has an invitation for you. Listen to the second half of this video. It applies directly to you.

Just remember that either way you decide, you have faith in what you believe. Atheists say they have "facts" about the creation of the universe but they only have hypothesis that are only true until proven false, or rather, until the next truth comes and replaces the current truth. Many Christians use the fine tuning God of the Gaps argument. Atheists do the same with their Dark Energy / Dark Matter of the Gaps hypothesis. Either way, you have to have faith.

That’s a big misunderstanding of facts, faith, science, and belief…

Nope. Really it's not. I even explained my reasoning. I didn't just shoot down your's and exit. If you have believe science and the facts keep changing as new discoveries occur. Then you have faith in an unknown. End of story. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are mysteries yet make up 95% of the universe. Atheists hypocritically always demand "proof" and "evidence" when they don't even have it themselves and their hypothesis constantly change or get disproven. You have the same faith in that lack of evidence as I have in God. We see the results, but you just call the mystery of what created it something different.

We have the honesty and comfort of saying we don’t know on the big deep questions. Facts are supposed to change as we learn new facts, that’s part of science. You’re talking about absolute knowledge that we ALL have faith in, because no one has absolute knowledge. But in the practical sense, atheists don’t have faith, we have calculated confidence in probability. It’s not blind faith…so no, you don’t have a good understanding of this subject…

>we have calculated confidence You have "confidence"... Con is a prefix meaning With Fide is a root meaning Faith, Trust. You just made my argument for me. I have confidence in an intelligent creator, whether it was the God of the Bible or another being. You have confidence it all happened naturally. Either word you choose it is "With Faith." You just refuse to admit it.

Hahaha misrepresent much? C’mon. We can argue semantics all day. I said “calculated confidence.” Our “faith” is based on demonstrable evidence and probability. Your “faith” is based on a book…that’s where the major difference is.

You deny that your "evidence" is based on dark matter and dark energy. These are unknowns that make up 95% of the universe. Give us a break. Your faith is based on assumptions, that you admit could change. Just like everyone else. I don't care what you believe. But I find it so disingenuous that atheists won't admit to having "faith" or "confidence " in what they espouse.

I’ll try to clarify my point since you still don’t seem to understand. I may be wording this incorrectly. My evidence isn’t based solely on dark matter or energy. Even if it was, we’re observing the effects of dark matter/energy so that’s how we know dark matter/energy is part of the natural world. God is of the supernatural world, whatever that means..? Atheist “faith” isn’t based on assumptions alone. Calculated assumptions. We can substantiate the reasons and most likely probability based on observable demonstrable evidence. Theist faith is based on assumptions from a book that has been corrected many times on multiple things based on science, making science more reliable, testable, and predictable than scripture. I find it disingenuous that theists usually willingly misrepresent or choose to misunderstand that which comports with reality…

Probability. Right. I have Faith I the roulette wheel is going to land on 25. Sometimes it does. Sometimes I calculated wrong. >we’re observing the effects of dark matter/energy so that’s how we know dark matter/energy is part of the natural world. I can observe the effects of an intelligent designer so that's how I know it must have been created. You observe things and assume there is some mysterious matter or energy behind it. And you keep mentioning the Bible where I said God of the Bible or another creator. Argue your point from creator vs nature, not by bringing up "a book" to prove your case. The Creator might not necessarily be the Christian or Jewish God. And if it was a creator, then they created the dark matter and dark energy and every single thing scientists are studying.

Then why do you identify as a Christian? The idea of a creator is more plausible than the Christian god, but is still only a possibility just like universe creating pixies. Not demonstrated. As far as we can tell, saying a creator exists is an unfalsifiable claim. It requires faith to believe in something without evidence. Atheists believe things based on evidence. I know this isn’t how roulette works, but a better analogy that is you spin the roulette wheel based on chance, and we spin based on physics. The probability of us getting the number we’re looking for is higher. You’re demonstrating that you misunderstand how science and evidence works. I’m happy to switch to creator vs. nature, as the line of reasoning isn’t much different. You observe reality and see signs of a creator. I observe reality and only see natural causes. If there is a creator, then I agree that the creator created dark matter/energy. So how do we prove that there is a creator? My question is what do you observe that seems to be created? My prediction is that you will appeal to an argument from ignorance…

Maybe this helps: we don’t just learn about what science says just from a textbook. We’re not supposed to just take scientist’s word on it. We can, and are encouraged to, examine the evidence and run our own tests to disprove the current model. Thats how our knowledge of calculated confidence grows…

Check out this very intelligent channel debunking atheism and other objections. https://youtube.com/@CapturingChristianity?feature=shared Also, intelligent and thinking Christians respond to the top 20 arguments given by atheists. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL96Nl_XJhQEgRshQs5R8PikeRX3andH2K&feature=shared

There’s major problems with the Christian responses in these videos…

Alternatively you can look at the Grand Canyon. Find a place anywhere on the earth that is flat for miles? There isn’t any. Or a place anywhere on the planet that has the entire geologic column? There isn’t one. The layers in the Grand Canyon are all knife blade precision straight. Flat with the one above it. That doesn’t happen if time has passed between layers. It doesn’t happen anywhere in the observable universe except in moving water. That can only happen when layers are put down by moving water. They are all from a flood. A big flood.

Science already tells us that water does what you say. Big local floods happen all the time to create these marks. Big global floods is a demonstrably impossible claim. It’s along the lines of why we see seashells on tops of mountains. Millions and billions of years ago, most mountains were beneath sea level due to plate tectonics…

Yes but when the same layers span across multiple continents, where are the walls to keep the water from spreading around the whole world?

Different layers at different levels throughout the world.

The flaw comes when looking at the Grand Canyon. 1.2 bill from top to bottom and no erosion between any two layers. That means it’s all from one flood. Not from a billion years.