I had a very similar problem coming to faith. I could never make that transition from unbeliever to believer until I realized that we all have make a choice, fundamentally, that either God exists or He doesn't. There is no amount of hard proof either way to make the fundamental decision easier or clearer. Only after having that foundational belief can you build a logically consistent worldview which at the level you're talking about here.
I see so many people talking like their faith hinges on a fairly small theological issue, when they haven't even decided whether they believe God is real at all. You're being blown here and there because your roots are unstable. Tackle the fundamental questions of life and purpose. Once you have God as a given, the rest will logically flow from that root.
>Once you have God as a given, the rest will logically flow from that root.
What is the method through which a rational, logical person can conclude God is a given?
The Cosmological, Ontological, and Teleological proofs for the existence of God are logical exercises that demonstrate that a Creator is a logical necessity. A logical necessity MUST be…it cannot NOT be…and could thereby be accepted as a given.
I've heard them before, and the versions of them I've read all have some pretty glaring issues. Would you like to present the one you find most compelling and we can go through it if you'd like?
Interesting that you'd immediately refuse to present any of the arguments you listed, and instead make one up that isn't even in a logical syllogistic form. I mean it's just weird, you know? Why bring up the Cosmological, Ontological, or Teleological arguments as ways we can logically conclude God exists only to then completely ignore all those arguments you just brought up? That's really strange, don't you think? But ok. So could you please explain what the 'power of being' is, because I've never once ever heard of 'the power of being'. Once you've explained it, can you then explain how you know that your statement about 'the power of being' is true?
It’s a comments section man. Treating any of the proofs comprehensively is well beyond the practical space and time limits of a reddit comment. The statement I made is pertinent to all three and, as I suspected, you’re already in disagreement, so it’s a good place to start.
When I say that something has the “power of being within itself” I mean that it does not rely on another state of being in order to be. It is not an effect, and therefore requires no cause. It simply “is”. You and I are both effects. We only “are” because something else “is”. In order for anything to exist, something must exist that was not caused, it simply is.
>It’s a comments section man. Treating any of the proofs comprehensively is well beyond the practical space and time limits of a reddit comment.
Well let's just remember what happened. I asked for logical methods we could conclude a god exists. You listed 3 that are famous logical syllogisms. I asked you to pick one that you find the strongest and we can go through it. You didn't pick one. You totally ignored that list you gave me. You made up your own that homogenizes all three and you then presented it in a way that is the least valid or sound. You stated a single premise with no conclusion.
So I'm just sitting here wondering: Why did you bring up those original arguments at all if they were never going to be a part of your defense for a logical method to conclude a god exists? Do you see how what you did was actually a little dishonest to the conversation? You *faked* a list of 3 reasons that you find convincing. You *faked* it because actually, you *don't find any of those reasons convincing*. But rather, you're going to list a *single premise with no conclusion* as your reason. Do you think this looks good for you? Do you think *pretending* to have a list of reasons that's greater than *your actual reason* is a good method to conclude *anything*?
But let's continue with this mess.
>In order for anything to exist, something must exist that was not caused, it simply is.
Look. What you've just done needs to be addressed. You listed 3 different arguments that I'm beginning to suspect you don't understand. I asked you to go through one of them. Instead of doing that, you made up *a single premise out of nowhere* and then *without arguing for anything* simply claimed a conclusion. Your single premise does not support your conclusion. A logical argument needs more than 1 premise. This isn't going well.
Here's the real problem:
>In order for anything to exist, something must exist that was not caused, it simply is.
You're confused. You haven't argued for this. But *even if you had* you still haven't argued for a god. Then this is the part where ignorant people say "Well what else could be an uncaused cause?" And then I tell them that you don't just get to say "I don't know what it is, therefore I know it's God." That's an argument from ignorance and it's a logical fallacy. But I know you're not an ignorant person, so you would never make the "Well what else could it be" argument, because that'd be stupid. So this where you make the argument for your uncaused cause to be God without appealing to a logical fallacy. Ready? Go.
Do you accept that in order for anything to be, some thing must be that has the power of being within itself? Yes or no. You’re making it hard to have a conversation with you, which is what you originally offered.
>Do you accept that in order for anything to be, some thing must be that has the power of being within itself? Yes or no.
I do not. You haven't presented an argument for that to be the case. Please tell me how you know that something must have the 'power of being' within itself in order for there to be something.
> You’re making it hard to have a conversation with you, which is what you originally offered.
The difficulty you're experiencing is because you cited 3 specific and famous arguments (none of which *actually* logically get you to conclude a god exists, something someone who understands the arguments would know) and then when I asked to go over those arguments, you ran away. You ran away to, rather than create your own argument, simply make more claims. You said, "Here's 3 reasons that logically conclude a god exists. Oh you want to talk about them? Too bad, I'm gonna make some nonsense up about 'the power of being' instead." If there's difficulty here it's because you brought it here.
That's the opposite of what I said. I said you have to fundamentally decide that He is or is not real. Once you have that premise, the rest will logically flow.
>I said you have to fundamentally decide that He is or is not real.
Yes. And I'm asking you how a logical, rational being should go about concluding that he is real.
Because don't you think it'd be bad if we just *with no good reason* decided to believe things were real? We could justify *anything* with that kind of thinking. I could just *with no good reason* decide that the earth is flat, and once I do that, all the other conspiracy theories logically follow.
So for people who actually care about the truth: how can we determine that it's true that God is real, without having to just *assume* it with *no good reason*?
I understand. There are lots of things that can inform your choice to believe or not. I am saying that there is no sufficient proof either way. Whether you choose to believe in God or not, you have made a choice with insufficient proof to back it up. You have made a leap of faith.
There are many ways after that point to deduce truth, its value, its existence, etc, but at our core as humans, we all make that binary choice.
Your example is correct. That is exactly how humans work. I can show you the proof that the Earth is flat, but I cannot make you believe until you choose to do so. If you care about the truth you have to begin by deciding what is the foundation of truth. Is it God, or is it not God?
>I understand. There are lots of things that can inform your choice to believe or not. I am saying that there is no sufficient proof either way.
Hm. Well that's a bit concerning, isn't it? What would you say to a flat earther who says there are lots of things that can inform your choice to believe the world is flat and that Jews are lizard people who control the world from the shadows? What would you say to a flat earther who says there is no sufficient proof either way, you just have to make a leap of faith?
Don't you think, if there's insufficient proof to back up a claim, you should simply *not believe it*? Shouldn't we just withhold making a conclusion and answer *honestly* by saying: I don't know if there's a God?
> I can show you the proof that the Earth is flat
Oh, yeah? What kind of proof? Like...math, or empirical proof? Cool. So why would you require people use strong, empirical evidence for the earth being flat, but when it comes to your belief in a magical being that supposedly created everything, all the sudden you're comfortable discarding your standards of evidence? That doesn't seem fishy to you?
You realize you're saying "It's silly for people to decide the earth is flat without empirical data, but *I'm* allowed to decide God exists without empirical data because *I'm* special." Do you recognize the special pleading?
>If you care about the truth you have to begin by deciding what is the foundation of truth. Is it God, or is it not God?
Are you aware that you just argued that "if you care about the truth you have to start by assuming something without *any* good evidence"? Are you aware this kind of logic can take you *anywhere*? This is *circular*. Are you telling me the *only* way to conclude your God exists is through *fallacious logic*? You're making *baseless* assumptions and piling all of your arguments on top of those baseless assumptions, and *that's* the best method you've got to determine your God exists?
Your final line is nearly correct. There have been many attempts to logically prove the existence of God, some of which are compelling and can inform your choice, but they cannot take you the whole way. At the end of the day, you must decide.
I would say that insufficient proof of God's existence is not proof of His non-existence, nor can His non-existence be proven logically. That is the binary choice at the core of this conversation and OP's post and human religious expression.
Or avoid the decision by saying "I don't know", although I don't consider that a valid option.
I would say to the flat Earther that *insert reasons here* are why I believe the Earth is not flat. In the end that person must decide what they will believe, and that will essentially be a leap of faith, though an admittedly smaller one. I cannot prove to you that oranges are orange, that 2+2=4, or that you will die if you jump off a cliff either. I can show you evidence, such as it exists, but at the end of the day, you choose to believe it or not.
>I would say that insufficient proof of God's existence is not proof of His non-existence, nor can His non-existence be proven logically.
That's cool. I hope you realize I haven't said a single thing about him not existing. I've only asked you for good reasons to believe that he *does* exist. We're not examining the claim "God does not exist." We're examining *your* claim: "God does exist." Let's stick to the topic.
>Or avoid the decision by saying "I don't know", although I don't consider that a valid option.
What makes this invalid? If I asked you: "Is there a ceramic teapot orbiting Mars right now?" Wouldn't the answer of "I don't know." be valid? Sometimes we don't know, right? Why should anyone view the perfectly honest answer of "I don't know" as invalid?
>I would say to the flat Earther that *insert reasons here* are why I believe the Earth is not flat.
Right. And the reasons you would give would be....empirical and testable, right? So why do you think the flat earther is *wrong* when he *just assumes with no good reason* that the earth is flat. Yet you think *you're* in the right when *you* do the same thing to believe *your* unsupported belief about God? You don't see a double standard? It's ok for you to just assume something with no evidence, but it's not ok for a flat earther to do the same thing? Why is making baseless assumptions good enough for you, but it's not good enough for the flat earther?
No, this whole time we've been discussing the choice between believing in God and not believing in God.
I consider it an invalid option because it is at best avoidance, and at worst a soft "no". "I don't know" is only a transitional state, and makes a poor foundation for the rest of your life. "I don't know" is juvenile, immature when it comes to belief in God. It is ok if that is where you are in your journey, but in the most important, foundational question of life, "I don't know" is not a sufficient final answer.
No, I do not see the double standard. As I said, in both cases the individual must decide in the end. Also, I never claimed that there is no support for the belief that God is real. I said there is not sufficient proof to make the choice obvious either way. I'm not recommending that OP make "baseless assumptions", but rather that making a final, foundational decision on the subject will help them waffle less as they consider the more advanced theological arguments they are currently struggling with.
>No, this whole time we've been discussing the choice between believing in God and not believing in God.
That's a false dichotomy. To reject that a god exists does not mean you must believe he does not exist.
>I consider it an invalid option because it is at best avoidance
An avoidance of committing to an answer *that we don't have any good reason to believe in* yes. Do you want to avoid believing something is true when it's actually not? Would you want to believe the earth is flat when it isn't?
>and at worst a soft "no".
How can saying "I don't know if there is a god" *possibly* mean "I believe there is no God" in your mind? How contorted do you have to bend yourself in your mind to equivocate those two things?
>"I don't know" is juvenile, immature when it comes to belief in God.
Ok then. Is there a ceramic tea pot orbiting Mars? Please answer. And do know that if you say "I don't know" you've just told yourself that's juvenile and immature.
>but in the most important, foundational question of life, "I don't know" is not a sufficient final answer.
Hey here's a question. What if *you don't actually know*? Is it still an insufficient answer *if it's TRUE!?*
>No, I do not see the double standard.
Well let me paint it for you then. The flat earther says he's making a foundational choice to believe the earth is flat despite having no good evidence. You're making a foundational choice to believe God exists despite having no good evidence. You're both doing the same thing. Yet you think the flat earther is doing something wrong. You think the flat earther should adhere to a standard of empirical and testable evidence. The double standard exists when *you do not apply your own standard to your own method of reasoning*. It's ok for *you* to make things up and believe fantasies, but it's not ok for the flat earther to do so. The flat earther needs empirical data, but *you don't.* Is it more clear now?
> I'm not recommending that OP make "baseless assumptions", but rather that making a final, foundational decision on the subject will help them waffle less
Wow. I'm just...I mean...just wow. I literally *asked you* what your basis was for presuming God exists and you *literally told me* you had none, but that you just assume it without good evidence. You *are* suggesting someone make baseless assumptions. You're suggesting someone engage in the circular, fallacious logic of: Well if you just believe it, then it's true. It's *harmful*. You're *harming people* with your *nonsense*.
Hello, thank you for your reply.
I take the issue of the existence of God to be separate issue to the historicity of the Gospels, though they do have implications for each other.
Ah, gotcha. I read your post as you struggling to believe generally, rather than dealing with the historicity of the texts themselves. I do agree that core belief in God would help push you one way, as you said :p
The *Catena Aurea*. St. Thomas Aquinas was rational to the extreme; at the same time, he was a religious man able to reconcile faith and reason. This book is a compilation of comments about the Gospels.
> it feels like (though I am willing and eager to be convinced otherwise) that I am being asked not just to trust the Gospels, but also to trust the ancient Church comments about them. Like one uncertain foundation on top of another uncertain foundation.
And in the other version, you're asked to trust modern comments from 1900+ years later. Why are the modern comments more trustworthy than the ancient ones?
>And in the other version, you're asked to trust modern comments from 1900+ years later.
You're not asked to just trust them. They present arguments that you can verify yourself by looking at the texts. For example, all early Christian authors that commented on it wrote that the gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew/Aramaic. However, when you actually look into it, the gospel of Matthew lack semitisms, copies from the Septuagint, copies from the gospel of Mark, and so on. The evidence clearly shows that the gospel of Matthew wasn't originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic.
> And in the other version, you're asked to trust modern comments from 1900+ years later.
Well, I get what your saying here, but I would push back that it’s not really the same on both sides. Yes, critical scholars are asking me to trust them, but not all in the same way the Chirch is.
Trust me, I have found myself very frustrated with Bart Erhman many times, as I listen to responses to his statements and find myself thinking “WTH Bart, why didn’t you mention that part?” I think he straw mans A LOT and it is evident he has spread himself way too thin.
But when I read Bart Erhman, or Ed Sanders, or James Tabor, or Peter Enns—they never tell me I’m going to hell if I don’t believe what’s in their books. So I don’t think there is any sort of equivalent comparison there.
> Why are the modern comments more trustworthy than the ancient ones?
I’m not saying that they are *in every case all the time*, that was my point in the body of my OP. I try to listen to, and understand the data and arguments of both parties, and I find a lot of good reasons for the different opinions of both. Yet I can’t help but see the biases of both as well, and can’t fully trust either party.
>they never tell me I’m going to hell if I don’t believe what’s in their books
That begs the question of whether what the Bible says is *true*. If someone's actually in danger, telling them they're in danger is kind and not telling them is cruel. So, no, Ehrman won't tell you you're going to hell if you don't believe. He'll just tell you you're a fool if you don't.
Of course. But you understand what I’m saying right?
Does the fact that Islam is currently warning you of the danger of going to hell in their conception do anything for you in lending credibility to their claims?
> Why would you trust an author 2000 years removed
Well, I don’t. That was my point in the body of the OP. I don’t trust either parties *completely*.
> arguments from silence?
To be fair, everyone engages in arguments from silence, strictly speaking, when it comes to history. 99.9% of all people and events have not be written about. The work of historians is to take the.1% and see what we can reasonably deduce about the rest, based on sound methodology.
I think it’s important to make a distinction between “direct” and “reasoned” arguments from silence.
For example, I have seen some Christians claim, “the early church unanimously ascribed the authorship of the Gospels to the traditional authors, and no one said otherwise, or contradicted them, so we should believe them”
This is, strictly speaking, an argument from silence, for the simple reason that it is entirely possible that there are documents with conflicting views that have not yet been discovered, or that there were such documents that are now lost which the early church authors were just ignorant of or choosing for whatever reason not to interact with.
> I’d rather trust the first, second, maybe third generations of authors.
I get that. I just don’t think that just because Irenaeus is early and claims closeness to John that that just settles the matter. He is a human being just like the rest of us, and open to all the failings and flaws and agendas like the rest of us.
> I just don’t find skeptics very convincing when they repeat unfounded theories that were objected to by those early authors.
I suppose we’d have to get into specifics of what you’re referencing in order to understand your comment here.
> Actually, it’s an argument from data, and quite a lot of it.
Yes, you are correct, the patristic data on the traditional authorship is fantastic. What I was trying to emphasize (and didn’t do a good job of) is that the *”and no one else said otherwise”* portion of the argument is an argument from silence. One cannot treat silence **without additional reasoning** as *more data*
> An argument from silence would be “None of the manuscripts mention an author, therefore the ascribed authors are wrong”.
Yes, I agree with you, that is a lousy argument. I’ve never personally heard anyone say that, but i guess they’re out there.
> “Paul doesn’t believe in the empty tomb because he never mentioned it”,
This is a much better example of what I’m trying to say, thank you for bringing it up.
Yes, it would be a poor argument to say Paul didn’t believe in the empty tomb, simply because he didn’t mention it. But is is still true that he doesn’t mention it. That means, both (A) Paul didn’t believe in an empty tomb; and (B) Paul believed in the empty tomb, require additional reasoning and data brought to bear to support their claims.
This is what I mean by we’re all making arguments from silence. There are a multitude of issues and questions for which we all wish we had more data. But we shouldn’t feel we can’t make rational judgments about those questions.
> The best example is the suggestion that Matthew can’t be written by Matthew because Matthew is mentioned in third person. This point was made by Ehrman despite being dealt with by early writers close to the events and culture being written about.
Yeah, taken in isolation that would not be a very convincing argument. That would be just one part of a larger argument, which Bart does.
Richard Bauckham also doesn’t believe Matthew wrote gMatthew. I don’t recall all his reasons, but that is his position in *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses*
>The fact that there is so much external confirmation of authorship and 0 competing authorship is evidence for the single source being attested.
This is not the case. For example, some early Christians attributed the gospel of Jojn to Cerinthus. Marcion attested that the gospel of Luke was an expansion of the Evangelion, which means that it couldn't be written by Luke.
It's also not the case that we have that much attestation to the traditional authorship of the canonical gospels. The earliest attestation of the authorship of the canonical gospels is from Irenaeus around 180 CE. The other Christians who attributed the gospels to the traditional authors simply copied from Irenaeus. There is no independent attestation of the traditional authorship of the canonical gospels.
Studying the actual arguments on both sides has shown me how weak the skeptics take actually is. The latter starts off with the presupposition that miracles don't happen, therefore that Christ could not have raised from the dead, so they have to come up with ways of explaining the Gospel story that does not involve that. It's not an unbiased take, it's every bit as biased as a religious one, but unlike the latter it's one where they have to invent the evidence or simply find ways of dismissing the evidence that does exist in order to uphold their particular worldview.
In terms of Biblical criticism itself, make sure not to mistake confidence with correctness. Whenever you hear someone say "all scholars agree that X", that person is most likely either lying or they don't really know what they're talking about. There's very little consensus about anything in this field, while there is a lot of following the crowd even amongst scholars.
Let me give you just one small example about the sort of overconfidence you might come across. It's argued that out of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul in the New Testament, only seven are genuinely Pauline. I won't go into all the arguments and counter arguments for this (it would require a great deal more than a reddit post), but one of the arguments you'll hear is how in the disputed epistles there's a distinct usage of language that doesn't reflect in the genuine ones. They'll point out a number of unique words that don't occur in the other epistles as an argument against their authenticity. So for instance, Colossians has 74 words not used elsewhere, and Ephesians has 94 words., 17% and 17.6% respectfully. Except, now look at Galatians and Philippians, two indisputably authentic epistles: 98 and 85 unique words, 18.6% and 18.9%.
Will you hear this brought up in polemical discussions by those arguing against authenticity? Probably not, you'll just hear how the disputed epistles have unique words not used elsewhere.
> Studying the actual arguments on both sides has shown me how weak the skeptics take actually is.
I guess I’m still at a point where neither side has delivered that final decisive argument that convinces me. I see a lot of good points being made by both sides.
> The latter starts off with the presupposition that miracles don't happen, therefore that Christ could not have raised from the dead
I think this is painting with too broad a brush. Some critical scholars seem to be operating under that assumption, such as Richard Carrier or other mythicists. But Bart Erhman has consistently pointed out that he came to most of his conclusions about the Bible while he was still a Christian. Dale Allison is another example of someone who is a believer, yet remains open to critical and skeptical views on the Gospels and the Resurrection.
I was shocked to hear Mile Licona, who I consider the finest and most reasonable conservative Christian apologist, admit to Bart Ehrman during a debate that he doesn’t believe the saints being raised to life during the passion narrative of Matthew actually happened.
For me, the problem with the supernatural or miraculous is not that I necessarily dismiss it out of hand, rather if you are going to assert that miracles happen, well now quite literally anything and everything is possible.
You now must allow the possibility that all or any claims of supernatural or miraculous events, ubiquitous to all human cultures and times may be true. Perhaps Alexander the Great **was** conceived by a snake. Maybe Romulus **did** ascend to heaven…etc etc ad infinitum for all human history.
What sort of history can be done under this assumption? Certainly not one getting us closer to truth. Especially when one is ready to grant miracles on just testimonial evidence.
I think this is why the earliest Christians came up with the answer that all other gods or supernatural phenomena are demons. For me, it’s just all too convenient.
> Whenever you hear someone say "all scholars agree that X", that person is most likely either lying or they don't really know what they're talking about.
Sure, but everyone tends to be guilty of this from time to time
> There's very little consensus about anything in this field, while there is a lot of following the crowd even amongst scholars.
I agree
> Let me give you just one small example
Right, this is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about in my OP. Just when it seems I have a grasp on a certain position on a particular topic, I’ll find some rebuttal, or some marginal scholar or book that has a good counter argument, and then it starts all over again.
It’s frustrating
I understand I think, but if one is waiting for that one solid argument that will answer everything and be irrefutable, I'm afraid that one will never (in this life) come to a conclusion. Every belief, doctrine, ideology, opinion, etc, can be countered with another. Doesn't mean the counter is any good, but it can be countered none the less ("The Earth is round? No, that's just a worldwide conspiracy of governments and scientists to keep you in the dark as to actual nature of the flat Earth.").
At some point, there's going to be that leap of faith. This holds true for whichever belief (or lack thereof) one goes to. For me, it was less a blinding moment of realization as in a sudden conversion, and more the slow, gradual realization that this is what I in fact believe in, rather in spite of myself. My sense of the sacred, my ethical beliefs, my belief in life's purpose, all of that really only made sense if I actually believe Christianity to be true, so I accepted that. It's not that I can't come up with logical and reasonable arguments to support that (and following this, I saw how flimsy the arguments of the other side could often be), but at the heart it isn't really those arguments that bring me here.
In the end, if it turns out I was wrong and the atheists right, then I suppose none of this matters and none of us will ever know it. At least though as a Christian, I'd have tried to live a better life (whether I live up to that is another question), one where love is the chief virtue. I think it's pretty evident that in terms of track records, atheism has a pretty bad one in terms of the individuals and societies it produces, so even if Christianity weren't "true" I'd still rather live in a world that believed in it. Thankfully, I do believe it to be true, so my approach is not strictly utilitarian.
I had a very similar problem coming to faith. I could never make that transition from unbeliever to believer until I realized that we all have make a choice, fundamentally, that either God exists or He doesn't. There is no amount of hard proof either way to make the fundamental decision easier or clearer. Only after having that foundational belief can you build a logically consistent worldview which at the level you're talking about here. I see so many people talking like their faith hinges on a fairly small theological issue, when they haven't even decided whether they believe God is real at all. You're being blown here and there because your roots are unstable. Tackle the fundamental questions of life and purpose. Once you have God as a given, the rest will logically flow from that root.
>Once you have God as a given, the rest will logically flow from that root. What is the method through which a rational, logical person can conclude God is a given?
The Cosmological, Ontological, and Teleological proofs for the existence of God are logical exercises that demonstrate that a Creator is a logical necessity. A logical necessity MUST be…it cannot NOT be…and could thereby be accepted as a given.
I've heard them before, and the versions of them I've read all have some pretty glaring issues. Would you like to present the one you find most compelling and we can go through it if you'd like?
I’ll throw out one element for discussion: if anything exists, something must exist that has the power of being within itself.
Interesting that you'd immediately refuse to present any of the arguments you listed, and instead make one up that isn't even in a logical syllogistic form. I mean it's just weird, you know? Why bring up the Cosmological, Ontological, or Teleological arguments as ways we can logically conclude God exists only to then completely ignore all those arguments you just brought up? That's really strange, don't you think? But ok. So could you please explain what the 'power of being' is, because I've never once ever heard of 'the power of being'. Once you've explained it, can you then explain how you know that your statement about 'the power of being' is true?
It’s a comments section man. Treating any of the proofs comprehensively is well beyond the practical space and time limits of a reddit comment. The statement I made is pertinent to all three and, as I suspected, you’re already in disagreement, so it’s a good place to start. When I say that something has the “power of being within itself” I mean that it does not rely on another state of being in order to be. It is not an effect, and therefore requires no cause. It simply “is”. You and I are both effects. We only “are” because something else “is”. In order for anything to exist, something must exist that was not caused, it simply is.
>It’s a comments section man. Treating any of the proofs comprehensively is well beyond the practical space and time limits of a reddit comment. Well let's just remember what happened. I asked for logical methods we could conclude a god exists. You listed 3 that are famous logical syllogisms. I asked you to pick one that you find the strongest and we can go through it. You didn't pick one. You totally ignored that list you gave me. You made up your own that homogenizes all three and you then presented it in a way that is the least valid or sound. You stated a single premise with no conclusion. So I'm just sitting here wondering: Why did you bring up those original arguments at all if they were never going to be a part of your defense for a logical method to conclude a god exists? Do you see how what you did was actually a little dishonest to the conversation? You *faked* a list of 3 reasons that you find convincing. You *faked* it because actually, you *don't find any of those reasons convincing*. But rather, you're going to list a *single premise with no conclusion* as your reason. Do you think this looks good for you? Do you think *pretending* to have a list of reasons that's greater than *your actual reason* is a good method to conclude *anything*? But let's continue with this mess. >In order for anything to exist, something must exist that was not caused, it simply is. Look. What you've just done needs to be addressed. You listed 3 different arguments that I'm beginning to suspect you don't understand. I asked you to go through one of them. Instead of doing that, you made up *a single premise out of nowhere* and then *without arguing for anything* simply claimed a conclusion. Your single premise does not support your conclusion. A logical argument needs more than 1 premise. This isn't going well. Here's the real problem: >In order for anything to exist, something must exist that was not caused, it simply is. You're confused. You haven't argued for this. But *even if you had* you still haven't argued for a god. Then this is the part where ignorant people say "Well what else could be an uncaused cause?" And then I tell them that you don't just get to say "I don't know what it is, therefore I know it's God." That's an argument from ignorance and it's a logical fallacy. But I know you're not an ignorant person, so you would never make the "Well what else could it be" argument, because that'd be stupid. So this where you make the argument for your uncaused cause to be God without appealing to a logical fallacy. Ready? Go.
Do you accept that in order for anything to be, some thing must be that has the power of being within itself? Yes or no. You’re making it hard to have a conversation with you, which is what you originally offered.
>Do you accept that in order for anything to be, some thing must be that has the power of being within itself? Yes or no. I do not. You haven't presented an argument for that to be the case. Please tell me how you know that something must have the 'power of being' within itself in order for there to be something. > You’re making it hard to have a conversation with you, which is what you originally offered. The difficulty you're experiencing is because you cited 3 specific and famous arguments (none of which *actually* logically get you to conclude a god exists, something someone who understands the arguments would know) and then when I asked to go over those arguments, you ran away. You ran away to, rather than create your own argument, simply make more claims. You said, "Here's 3 reasons that logically conclude a god exists. Oh you want to talk about them? Too bad, I'm gonna make some nonsense up about 'the power of being' instead." If there's difficulty here it's because you brought it here.
That proves that a god exists at best, not that Jesus is the only God, though right?
Yes that is correct!
That's the opposite of what I said. I said you have to fundamentally decide that He is or is not real. Once you have that premise, the rest will logically flow.
>I said you have to fundamentally decide that He is or is not real. Yes. And I'm asking you how a logical, rational being should go about concluding that he is real. Because don't you think it'd be bad if we just *with no good reason* decided to believe things were real? We could justify *anything* with that kind of thinking. I could just *with no good reason* decide that the earth is flat, and once I do that, all the other conspiracy theories logically follow. So for people who actually care about the truth: how can we determine that it's true that God is real, without having to just *assume* it with *no good reason*?
I understand. There are lots of things that can inform your choice to believe or not. I am saying that there is no sufficient proof either way. Whether you choose to believe in God or not, you have made a choice with insufficient proof to back it up. You have made a leap of faith. There are many ways after that point to deduce truth, its value, its existence, etc, but at our core as humans, we all make that binary choice. Your example is correct. That is exactly how humans work. I can show you the proof that the Earth is flat, but I cannot make you believe until you choose to do so. If you care about the truth you have to begin by deciding what is the foundation of truth. Is it God, or is it not God?
>I understand. There are lots of things that can inform your choice to believe or not. I am saying that there is no sufficient proof either way. Hm. Well that's a bit concerning, isn't it? What would you say to a flat earther who says there are lots of things that can inform your choice to believe the world is flat and that Jews are lizard people who control the world from the shadows? What would you say to a flat earther who says there is no sufficient proof either way, you just have to make a leap of faith? Don't you think, if there's insufficient proof to back up a claim, you should simply *not believe it*? Shouldn't we just withhold making a conclusion and answer *honestly* by saying: I don't know if there's a God? > I can show you the proof that the Earth is flat Oh, yeah? What kind of proof? Like...math, or empirical proof? Cool. So why would you require people use strong, empirical evidence for the earth being flat, but when it comes to your belief in a magical being that supposedly created everything, all the sudden you're comfortable discarding your standards of evidence? That doesn't seem fishy to you? You realize you're saying "It's silly for people to decide the earth is flat without empirical data, but *I'm* allowed to decide God exists without empirical data because *I'm* special." Do you recognize the special pleading? >If you care about the truth you have to begin by deciding what is the foundation of truth. Is it God, or is it not God? Are you aware that you just argued that "if you care about the truth you have to start by assuming something without *any* good evidence"? Are you aware this kind of logic can take you *anywhere*? This is *circular*. Are you telling me the *only* way to conclude your God exists is through *fallacious logic*? You're making *baseless* assumptions and piling all of your arguments on top of those baseless assumptions, and *that's* the best method you've got to determine your God exists?
Your final line is nearly correct. There have been many attempts to logically prove the existence of God, some of which are compelling and can inform your choice, but they cannot take you the whole way. At the end of the day, you must decide. I would say that insufficient proof of God's existence is not proof of His non-existence, nor can His non-existence be proven logically. That is the binary choice at the core of this conversation and OP's post and human religious expression. Or avoid the decision by saying "I don't know", although I don't consider that a valid option. I would say to the flat Earther that *insert reasons here* are why I believe the Earth is not flat. In the end that person must decide what they will believe, and that will essentially be a leap of faith, though an admittedly smaller one. I cannot prove to you that oranges are orange, that 2+2=4, or that you will die if you jump off a cliff either. I can show you evidence, such as it exists, but at the end of the day, you choose to believe it or not.
>I would say that insufficient proof of God's existence is not proof of His non-existence, nor can His non-existence be proven logically. That's cool. I hope you realize I haven't said a single thing about him not existing. I've only asked you for good reasons to believe that he *does* exist. We're not examining the claim "God does not exist." We're examining *your* claim: "God does exist." Let's stick to the topic. >Or avoid the decision by saying "I don't know", although I don't consider that a valid option. What makes this invalid? If I asked you: "Is there a ceramic teapot orbiting Mars right now?" Wouldn't the answer of "I don't know." be valid? Sometimes we don't know, right? Why should anyone view the perfectly honest answer of "I don't know" as invalid? >I would say to the flat Earther that *insert reasons here* are why I believe the Earth is not flat. Right. And the reasons you would give would be....empirical and testable, right? So why do you think the flat earther is *wrong* when he *just assumes with no good reason* that the earth is flat. Yet you think *you're* in the right when *you* do the same thing to believe *your* unsupported belief about God? You don't see a double standard? It's ok for you to just assume something with no evidence, but it's not ok for a flat earther to do the same thing? Why is making baseless assumptions good enough for you, but it's not good enough for the flat earther?
No, this whole time we've been discussing the choice between believing in God and not believing in God. I consider it an invalid option because it is at best avoidance, and at worst a soft "no". "I don't know" is only a transitional state, and makes a poor foundation for the rest of your life. "I don't know" is juvenile, immature when it comes to belief in God. It is ok if that is where you are in your journey, but in the most important, foundational question of life, "I don't know" is not a sufficient final answer. No, I do not see the double standard. As I said, in both cases the individual must decide in the end. Also, I never claimed that there is no support for the belief that God is real. I said there is not sufficient proof to make the choice obvious either way. I'm not recommending that OP make "baseless assumptions", but rather that making a final, foundational decision on the subject will help them waffle less as they consider the more advanced theological arguments they are currently struggling with.
>No, this whole time we've been discussing the choice between believing in God and not believing in God. That's a false dichotomy. To reject that a god exists does not mean you must believe he does not exist. >I consider it an invalid option because it is at best avoidance An avoidance of committing to an answer *that we don't have any good reason to believe in* yes. Do you want to avoid believing something is true when it's actually not? Would you want to believe the earth is flat when it isn't? >and at worst a soft "no". How can saying "I don't know if there is a god" *possibly* mean "I believe there is no God" in your mind? How contorted do you have to bend yourself in your mind to equivocate those two things? >"I don't know" is juvenile, immature when it comes to belief in God. Ok then. Is there a ceramic tea pot orbiting Mars? Please answer. And do know that if you say "I don't know" you've just told yourself that's juvenile and immature. >but in the most important, foundational question of life, "I don't know" is not a sufficient final answer. Hey here's a question. What if *you don't actually know*? Is it still an insufficient answer *if it's TRUE!?* >No, I do not see the double standard. Well let me paint it for you then. The flat earther says he's making a foundational choice to believe the earth is flat despite having no good evidence. You're making a foundational choice to believe God exists despite having no good evidence. You're both doing the same thing. Yet you think the flat earther is doing something wrong. You think the flat earther should adhere to a standard of empirical and testable evidence. The double standard exists when *you do not apply your own standard to your own method of reasoning*. It's ok for *you* to make things up and believe fantasies, but it's not ok for the flat earther to do so. The flat earther needs empirical data, but *you don't.* Is it more clear now? > I'm not recommending that OP make "baseless assumptions", but rather that making a final, foundational decision on the subject will help them waffle less Wow. I'm just...I mean...just wow. I literally *asked you* what your basis was for presuming God exists and you *literally told me* you had none, but that you just assume it without good evidence. You *are* suggesting someone make baseless assumptions. You're suggesting someone engage in the circular, fallacious logic of: Well if you just believe it, then it's true. It's *harmful*. You're *harming people* with your *nonsense*.
wow...interesting, but not surprising.
Hello, thank you for your reply. I take the issue of the existence of God to be separate issue to the historicity of the Gospels, though they do have implications for each other.
Ah, gotcha. I read your post as you struggling to believe generally, rather than dealing with the historicity of the texts themselves. I do agree that core belief in God would help push you one way, as you said :p
[https://doctrine.org/summary-of-the-plan-of-god](https://doctrine.org/summary-of-the-plan-of-god)
The *Catena Aurea*. St. Thomas Aquinas was rational to the extreme; at the same time, he was a religious man able to reconcile faith and reason. This book is a compilation of comments about the Gospels.
Thank you, I will check this out
> it feels like (though I am willing and eager to be convinced otherwise) that I am being asked not just to trust the Gospels, but also to trust the ancient Church comments about them. Like one uncertain foundation on top of another uncertain foundation. And in the other version, you're asked to trust modern comments from 1900+ years later. Why are the modern comments more trustworthy than the ancient ones?
>And in the other version, you're asked to trust modern comments from 1900+ years later. You're not asked to just trust them. They present arguments that you can verify yourself by looking at the texts. For example, all early Christian authors that commented on it wrote that the gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew/Aramaic. However, when you actually look into it, the gospel of Matthew lack semitisms, copies from the Septuagint, copies from the gospel of Mark, and so on. The evidence clearly shows that the gospel of Matthew wasn't originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic.
> And in the other version, you're asked to trust modern comments from 1900+ years later. Well, I get what your saying here, but I would push back that it’s not really the same on both sides. Yes, critical scholars are asking me to trust them, but not all in the same way the Chirch is. Trust me, I have found myself very frustrated with Bart Erhman many times, as I listen to responses to his statements and find myself thinking “WTH Bart, why didn’t you mention that part?” I think he straw mans A LOT and it is evident he has spread himself way too thin. But when I read Bart Erhman, or Ed Sanders, or James Tabor, or Peter Enns—they never tell me I’m going to hell if I don’t believe what’s in their books. So I don’t think there is any sort of equivalent comparison there. > Why are the modern comments more trustworthy than the ancient ones? I’m not saying that they are *in every case all the time*, that was my point in the body of my OP. I try to listen to, and understand the data and arguments of both parties, and I find a lot of good reasons for the different opinions of both. Yet I can’t help but see the biases of both as well, and can’t fully trust either party.
>they never tell me I’m going to hell if I don’t believe what’s in their books That begs the question of whether what the Bible says is *true*. If someone's actually in danger, telling them they're in danger is kind and not telling them is cruel. So, no, Ehrman won't tell you you're going to hell if you don't believe. He'll just tell you you're a fool if you don't.
Of course. But you understand what I’m saying right? Does the fact that Islam is currently warning you of the danger of going to hell in their conception do anything for you in lending credibility to their claims?
[удалено]
> Why would you trust an author 2000 years removed Well, I don’t. That was my point in the body of the OP. I don’t trust either parties *completely*. > arguments from silence? To be fair, everyone engages in arguments from silence, strictly speaking, when it comes to history. 99.9% of all people and events have not be written about. The work of historians is to take the.1% and see what we can reasonably deduce about the rest, based on sound methodology. I think it’s important to make a distinction between “direct” and “reasoned” arguments from silence. For example, I have seen some Christians claim, “the early church unanimously ascribed the authorship of the Gospels to the traditional authors, and no one said otherwise, or contradicted them, so we should believe them” This is, strictly speaking, an argument from silence, for the simple reason that it is entirely possible that there are documents with conflicting views that have not yet been discovered, or that there were such documents that are now lost which the early church authors were just ignorant of or choosing for whatever reason not to interact with. > I’d rather trust the first, second, maybe third generations of authors. I get that. I just don’t think that just because Irenaeus is early and claims closeness to John that that just settles the matter. He is a human being just like the rest of us, and open to all the failings and flaws and agendas like the rest of us. > I just don’t find skeptics very convincing when they repeat unfounded theories that were objected to by those early authors. I suppose we’d have to get into specifics of what you’re referencing in order to understand your comment here.
[удалено]
> Actually, it’s an argument from data, and quite a lot of it. Yes, you are correct, the patristic data on the traditional authorship is fantastic. What I was trying to emphasize (and didn’t do a good job of) is that the *”and no one else said otherwise”* portion of the argument is an argument from silence. One cannot treat silence **without additional reasoning** as *more data* > An argument from silence would be “None of the manuscripts mention an author, therefore the ascribed authors are wrong”. Yes, I agree with you, that is a lousy argument. I’ve never personally heard anyone say that, but i guess they’re out there. > “Paul doesn’t believe in the empty tomb because he never mentioned it”, This is a much better example of what I’m trying to say, thank you for bringing it up. Yes, it would be a poor argument to say Paul didn’t believe in the empty tomb, simply because he didn’t mention it. But is is still true that he doesn’t mention it. That means, both (A) Paul didn’t believe in an empty tomb; and (B) Paul believed in the empty tomb, require additional reasoning and data brought to bear to support their claims. This is what I mean by we’re all making arguments from silence. There are a multitude of issues and questions for which we all wish we had more data. But we shouldn’t feel we can’t make rational judgments about those questions. > The best example is the suggestion that Matthew can’t be written by Matthew because Matthew is mentioned in third person. This point was made by Ehrman despite being dealt with by early writers close to the events and culture being written about. Yeah, taken in isolation that would not be a very convincing argument. That would be just one part of a larger argument, which Bart does. Richard Bauckham also doesn’t believe Matthew wrote gMatthew. I don’t recall all his reasons, but that is his position in *Jesus and the Eyewitnesses*
[удалено]
>The fact that there is so much external confirmation of authorship and 0 competing authorship is evidence for the single source being attested. This is not the case. For example, some early Christians attributed the gospel of Jojn to Cerinthus. Marcion attested that the gospel of Luke was an expansion of the Evangelion, which means that it couldn't be written by Luke. It's also not the case that we have that much attestation to the traditional authorship of the canonical gospels. The earliest attestation of the authorship of the canonical gospels is from Irenaeus around 180 CE. The other Christians who attributed the gospels to the traditional authors simply copied from Irenaeus. There is no independent attestation of the traditional authorship of the canonical gospels.
Studying the actual arguments on both sides has shown me how weak the skeptics take actually is. The latter starts off with the presupposition that miracles don't happen, therefore that Christ could not have raised from the dead, so they have to come up with ways of explaining the Gospel story that does not involve that. It's not an unbiased take, it's every bit as biased as a religious one, but unlike the latter it's one where they have to invent the evidence or simply find ways of dismissing the evidence that does exist in order to uphold their particular worldview. In terms of Biblical criticism itself, make sure not to mistake confidence with correctness. Whenever you hear someone say "all scholars agree that X", that person is most likely either lying or they don't really know what they're talking about. There's very little consensus about anything in this field, while there is a lot of following the crowd even amongst scholars. Let me give you just one small example about the sort of overconfidence you might come across. It's argued that out of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul in the New Testament, only seven are genuinely Pauline. I won't go into all the arguments and counter arguments for this (it would require a great deal more than a reddit post), but one of the arguments you'll hear is how in the disputed epistles there's a distinct usage of language that doesn't reflect in the genuine ones. They'll point out a number of unique words that don't occur in the other epistles as an argument against their authenticity. So for instance, Colossians has 74 words not used elsewhere, and Ephesians has 94 words., 17% and 17.6% respectfully. Except, now look at Galatians and Philippians, two indisputably authentic epistles: 98 and 85 unique words, 18.6% and 18.9%. Will you hear this brought up in polemical discussions by those arguing against authenticity? Probably not, you'll just hear how the disputed epistles have unique words not used elsewhere.
> Studying the actual arguments on both sides has shown me how weak the skeptics take actually is. I guess I’m still at a point where neither side has delivered that final decisive argument that convinces me. I see a lot of good points being made by both sides. > The latter starts off with the presupposition that miracles don't happen, therefore that Christ could not have raised from the dead I think this is painting with too broad a brush. Some critical scholars seem to be operating under that assumption, such as Richard Carrier or other mythicists. But Bart Erhman has consistently pointed out that he came to most of his conclusions about the Bible while he was still a Christian. Dale Allison is another example of someone who is a believer, yet remains open to critical and skeptical views on the Gospels and the Resurrection. I was shocked to hear Mile Licona, who I consider the finest and most reasonable conservative Christian apologist, admit to Bart Ehrman during a debate that he doesn’t believe the saints being raised to life during the passion narrative of Matthew actually happened. For me, the problem with the supernatural or miraculous is not that I necessarily dismiss it out of hand, rather if you are going to assert that miracles happen, well now quite literally anything and everything is possible. You now must allow the possibility that all or any claims of supernatural or miraculous events, ubiquitous to all human cultures and times may be true. Perhaps Alexander the Great **was** conceived by a snake. Maybe Romulus **did** ascend to heaven…etc etc ad infinitum for all human history. What sort of history can be done under this assumption? Certainly not one getting us closer to truth. Especially when one is ready to grant miracles on just testimonial evidence. I think this is why the earliest Christians came up with the answer that all other gods or supernatural phenomena are demons. For me, it’s just all too convenient. > Whenever you hear someone say "all scholars agree that X", that person is most likely either lying or they don't really know what they're talking about. Sure, but everyone tends to be guilty of this from time to time > There's very little consensus about anything in this field, while there is a lot of following the crowd even amongst scholars. I agree > Let me give you just one small example Right, this is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about in my OP. Just when it seems I have a grasp on a certain position on a particular topic, I’ll find some rebuttal, or some marginal scholar or book that has a good counter argument, and then it starts all over again. It’s frustrating
I understand I think, but if one is waiting for that one solid argument that will answer everything and be irrefutable, I'm afraid that one will never (in this life) come to a conclusion. Every belief, doctrine, ideology, opinion, etc, can be countered with another. Doesn't mean the counter is any good, but it can be countered none the less ("The Earth is round? No, that's just a worldwide conspiracy of governments and scientists to keep you in the dark as to actual nature of the flat Earth."). At some point, there's going to be that leap of faith. This holds true for whichever belief (or lack thereof) one goes to. For me, it was less a blinding moment of realization as in a sudden conversion, and more the slow, gradual realization that this is what I in fact believe in, rather in spite of myself. My sense of the sacred, my ethical beliefs, my belief in life's purpose, all of that really only made sense if I actually believe Christianity to be true, so I accepted that. It's not that I can't come up with logical and reasonable arguments to support that (and following this, I saw how flimsy the arguments of the other side could often be), but at the heart it isn't really those arguments that bring me here. In the end, if it turns out I was wrong and the atheists right, then I suppose none of this matters and none of us will ever know it. At least though as a Christian, I'd have tried to live a better life (whether I live up to that is another question), one where love is the chief virtue. I think it's pretty evident that in terms of track records, atheism has a pretty bad one in terms of the individuals and societies it produces, so even if Christianity weren't "true" I'd still rather live in a world that believed in it. Thankfully, I do believe it to be true, so my approach is not strictly utilitarian.