New member, looking for discussion

[neophyte]

Thanks for the clarification.

Your line of reasoning, if I understand your posts correctly:

1. If the christian god exists, then miracles are possible
2. if miracles are impossible, then the christian god does not exist
3. this particular miracle happened
4. therefore miracles are possible
5. if miracles are possible, the christian god exists.
6. the christian god exists.

That doesn’t even remotely resemble my reasoning. Refer to my earlier post.

But in any case:

A. Point (3) is unknown

It is most certainly known from the historical evidence.

edit: from this discussion, the major sticking point for me is (3), ressurection. Demonstrating that this happened would do a lot to change my view.

Then closely study the historical evidence. Someone (VociMike?) said that McDowell’s book isn’t all that good, and recommended something else. I’m not familiar with the works he mentioned, but I respect his opinion - nonetheless, I found McDowell’s book to be very helpful.

 

[neophyte]

…It looks like you are saying “you must have faith to be able to be convinced by any demonstration or proof”. However, a rational person cannot have faith, and if a person has faith, a proof is superfluous.

You’re what you’re describing is not “faith”, it’s called “credulity”.

Faith and proof are complimentary, and in fact one could make a strong case that proof (or at least evidence) is a prerequisite of faith.

 

[wasmit]

Wasmit,

Your quote of post #128 interests me, would you please post the author and source?

Originally Posted by wasmit

“Around that time I looked more closely and critically at the religion and dismissed it as silly for many reasons. The reasons mainly centred around proof, evidence, feasibility, reality, etc.”.

also

"I mustn’t deny that which is shown to be true, and I must deny that which is shown to be not.

After my original choice to believe in logical, rational, evidence based demonstrations, I can make no other choices in what to believe."

Do you believe in love? Love of/for your spouse, your child, your parents? (Choose whichever applies to your life) Does love meet the logical, rational, evidence based demonstration criteria? My answer would be no, it does not. Love comes from within one’s self with no tangible proof, just as faith in God comes from within. I believe most emotions would also not be logical, rational or evidence based. In fact, many emotions contradict the very meaning of logical and rational. Jealousy and envy come immediately to mind. But yet, would you agree that emotions do exist? To any “proof” a person may offer as tangible evidence of an emotion, I propose there would alway be an alternative explanation or possibility.

If, in fact, you do believe emotions to be a reality, is it possible there may be other things that do not fit your criteria that also exist? (Note I did not say "therefore there may be other things … but, is it possible…)

I found it on the internet a while ago posted by some random nobody. Just do a google search and you should be able to find it.

Proving an emotion and proving the existence of an intellectual being are two very different tasks. No, I can’t prove to you that I love my wife, but I can prove that she exists. Nevertheless, I expect a reasonable person to believe me when I say I love my wife. Likewise, I believe you when you assert that you love God, but I refuse to believe that God exists on only your word. I’m afraid you have a very real love for a very imaginary being.

 

[wasmit]

Actually we have some of the strongest evidence available for this. It lies in the the historical, documented reocrd both directly and indirectly.

1. There are the written records of St John and St Matthew. Both eyewitnesses to the Risen Lord. Then there is the witness of Mark and Luke, who were both closely related to the actual eyewitnesses.
2. The Lord appeared to, not just a couple of people in some remote place, but to many people.
3. The Lord had physical form after the resurection since Thomas was able to put his fingers in the wounds.
4. Even more compelling is the evidence of those who were willing to die rather than recant. The most convincing of these is Peter himself. Before Jesus was crucified, Peter denied Him three times we are told. Yet after seeing the Risen Lord Peter was willing to die a horrible death rather than deny Him again.

When one considers how to determine if an “Ancinet” historical event actually occurred, the written accounts those who witnessed the events is strong and compelling evidence for the researcher.

Let us look at something more modern as an example.
Wasmit - Prove to me that anyone ever went to the moon. What evidence can you “Show” me? What Proofs do you have? We have written records, and film of rockets blasting off etc but short of going to the moon ourselves we cannot physically “Prove” that man ever went there.
The actual “proof” for the manned moon mission lies in the recorded evidence and our confidence that those evidences are real and correct. The fact that so many people were involved in it and their “stories” and “experiences” are consistant and real. As for those who actually stood on the moon, there is only about a dozen or so who can actually say, “I was there” - I touched the moon.

I’m sure I haven’t explained this all that well. I’m under a bit of a time crunch. My Wife is in hospital and I am trying to get to Church this AM. So if someone else can take and improve on the above, please do so.

Wasmit - You do have a logical and analytical mind, a bit too critical maybe, but sincere and I like that. Let me ask you this.
Can something exist without “Proof”, that is without “Wasmit approved proof”?
In other words are there things that you believe exist, but you cannot prove?

Peace
James

I will look into those four points.

If (4) is accurate, (I don’t know if it is or not), it shows only that Peter believed in jesus and his message. One person believing in something does nothing towards demonstrating that the belief is true.

The astronauts left reflectors on the moon that a laser can be pointed at, and the reflected beam seen.

Moon rocks brought back to earth show impacts of extremely tiny meteorites, which is impossible on earth rocks because the meteorites would be burnt up in earth’s atmosphere, while the moon has no atmosphere.

“Can something exist without Proof?” is a very different question to “In other words are there things that you believe exist, but you cannot prove?”

Of course something can exist without being proven. e.g. things no one knows about, e.g. a species of marine animal that has never been seen by a human.

Nothing can be proven (except in mathematics). For example, everyone accepts as true that the sun will rise tomorrow. But it cannot be proven, as it is conceivably possible that the sun may explode today.

 

[JRKH]

I will look into those four points.

If (4) is accurate, (I don’t know if it is or not), it shows only that Peter believed in jesus and his message. One person believing in something does nothing towards demonstrating that the belief is true.

Peter is but one example. I believe it was James who was thrown from a roof, Steven who was stoned to death, Paul was beheaded and how many other apostles who died violent deaths rather than deny or be quiet about that which they had witnessed with their own eyes.

The astronauts left reflectors on the moon that a laser can be pointed at, and the reflected beam seen.

Many unmanned missions have been (purportedly) sent to the moon. So reflectors on the moon does not prove that Men were there.
So obviously there is “another possible explanation”

Moon rocks brought back to earth show impacts of extremely tiny meteorites, which is impossible on earth rocks because the meteorites would be burnt up in earth’s atmosphere, while the moon has no atmosphere.

1. Prove that the rocks that supposedly came from the moon actually did.
2. An unmanned probe could have gone to the moon and returned with rocks.
   So moon rocks on earth (if indeed they are moon rocks) does not prove that man went to the moon.
   Another explanation is possible.

“Can something exist without Proof?” is a very different question to “In other words are there things that you believe exist, but you cannot prove?”

Of course something can exist without being proven. e.g. things no one knows about, e.g. a species of marine animal that has never been seen by a human.

point taken.

Nothing can be proven (except in mathematics). For example, everyone accepts as true that the sun will rise tomorrow. But it cannot be proven, as it is conceivably possible that the sun may explode today.

Yet you are asking us to “prove” the existance of God.
So by this are you saying that we must prove God mathematically?

How can you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow? Hasn’t science established that the sun doesn’t rise, but rather the earth turns so we face it?
Sorry - couldn’t resist that.

Peace
James

 

[BootCampJr]

This is from an a-mail I received. It will have to be separated into a couple different replies, as it is very long. Its a good read, and I think you may be able to find something in this that might be of some help. If it doesn’t, that’s ok too. The fact that you are questioning leads me to believe that you aren’t necessarily convinced one way or the other. That, to me, indicates that there is hope. Good luck to you nonetheless. Here it is:

‘Let me explain the problem science has with religion.’ The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?’

‘Yes sir,’ the student says.

‘So you believe in God?’

'Absolutely.

‘Is God good?’

'Sure! God’s good.

‘Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?’

‘Yes’

‘Are you good or evil?’

'The Bible says I’m evil.

The professor grins knowingly. ‘Aha! The Bible!’ He considers for a moment. ‘Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it.
Would you help him? Would you try?’

'Yes sir, I would.

‘So you’re good…!’

'I wouldn’t say that.

'But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. ‘He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him.
How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?’

The student remains silent.

‘No, you can’t, can you?’ the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

‘Let’s start again, young fella.
Is God good?’

‘Er…yes,’ the student says.

Prof.
‘Is Satan good?’

The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. 'No.

‘Then where does Satan come from?’

The student falters.
‘From God’

‘That’s right… God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son.
Is there evil in this world?’

'Yes, sir.

‘Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?’

‘Yes’

‘So who created evil?’ The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.

Again, the student has no answer.
‘Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?’

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.

‘So who created them?’

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. ‘Who created them?’ There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. ‘Tell me,’ he continues onto another student.
‘Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?’

 

[BootCampJr]

The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.

The old man stops pacing. ‘Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you.
Have you ever seen Jesus?’

'No sir. I’ve never seen Him.

‘Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?’

'No, sir, I have not.

‘Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?’

'No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.

‘Yet you still believe in him?’

‘Yes’

‘According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist.
What do you say to that, son?’

‘Nothing,’ the student replies. 'I only have my faith.

‘Yes, faith,’ the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.
‘Professor, is there such thing as heat?’

’ yes.

‘And is there such a thing as cold?’

'Yes, son, there’s cold too.

'No sir, there isn’t.

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.

'Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

‘What about darkness, professor.
Is there such a thing as darkness?’

‘Yes,’ the professor replies without hesitation.
‘What is night if it isn’t darkness?’

'You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.

‘In reality, darkness isn’t.
If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?’

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester.
‘So what point are you making, young man?’

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.

The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time.
‘Flawed? Can you explain how?’

‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.

Now tell me, professor.
Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?’

 

[BootCampJr]

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.

‘Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?’

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed…

‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.

The student looks around the room. ’ Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?’ The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.

‘So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?’

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.

‘Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,’ the student continues.
‘Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?’

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.

The professor sat down.

PS: the student was Albert Einstein

 

[redhen]

I read the above article, and soon as I saw the Albert Einstein tag, I knew it had to be a hoax. Sure enough: snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

 

[forever47]

Proving an emotion and proving the existence of an intellectual being are two very different tasks. No, I can’t prove to you that I love my wife, but I can prove that she exists. Nevertheless, I expect a reasonable person to believe me when I say I love my wife. Likewise, I believe you when you assert that you love God, but I refuse to believe that God exists on only your word. I’m afraid you have a very real love for a very imaginary being.

I would agree with that statement IF we are referring to an intellectual being that is of earth. God is not. My point is referring to two intangibles. Your original post stated:

“I am looking for clear, rational, arguments for the existence of a god, or the christian god, or to show that something in the bible is true. I have an open mind, and if you show something to be true, or almost certainly true, I must believe it.”

Your post gives three options. The first I dismiss as being an idol type god. The second is spiritual (an intangible) which, since you read to be an intelligent person, I’m sure you realize cannot be proven. Just as you cannot prove love for your wife although you expect a reasonable person to believe you love her when you cannot prove love exists. I didn’t ask you to prove she exists, I’ll take your word on that. I want you to prove you love her, I will not take your word on that. The third can only be proven in the same manner some other parts of history can be proven, written accounts by the people of that time. Is that absolute proof? No, it could have been fabricated. Yet, it is most generally accepted to be true since there is no logical reason not to believe it.

Let me challenge you with this: can you disprove the existence of a Christian God? can you show that something in the Bible is untrue?

 

[BootCampJr]

I read the above article, and soon as I saw the Albert Einstein tag, I knew it had to be a hoax.

Perhaps it is. However, it was my faith that led me to believe that it could be true.

 

[wasmit]

Peter is but one example. I believe it was James who was thrown from a roof, Steven who was stoned to death, Paul was beheaded and how many other apostles who died violent deaths rather than deny or be quiet about that which they had witnessed with their own eyes.

Many thousands of people once believed in the greek gods. Everyone once believed that the earth was flat.

A person believeing something is not evidence for anything.

Yet you are asking us to “prove” the existance of God.
So by this are you saying that we must prove God mathematically?

I’m not asking for a proof, i am looking for a demonstration that a god exists, or evidence that suggests that a god exists.

 

[wasmit]

Let me challenge you with this: can you disprove the existence of a Christian God? can you show that something in the Bible is untrue?

The christian god cannot be disproven - neither can FSM.
below is proof that at least one thing in the bible is untrue.

1 samuel 8
newadvent.org/bible/1sa008.htm
And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he appointed his sons to be judges over Israel. 2 Now the name of his firstborn son was Joel: and the name of the second was Abia, judges in Bersabee.

newadvent.org/bible/1ch006.htm
1Chronicles6
23 Elcana his son, Abiasaph his son, Asir his son, 24 Thahath his son, Uriel his son, Ozias his son, Saul his son. 25 The sons of Elcana: Amasai, and Achimoth. 26 And Elcana. The sons of Elcana: Sophai his son, Nahath his son, 27 Eliab his son, Jeroham his son, Elcana his son. 28 The sons of Samuel: the firstborn Vasseni, and Abia. 29 And the sons of Merari, Moholi: Lobni his son, Semei his son, Oza his son, 30 Sammaa his son, Haggia his son, Asaia his son.

Samuel’s firstborn son is Joel.
Samuel’s firstborn son is Vasseni.

 

[wasmit]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness
Darkness (also called lightlessness) is the absence of light. Scientifically it is only possible to have a reduced amount of light.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold
Cold refers to the condition of having low temperature, it is the absence of heat relative to the concept of warmth.

“‘Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?’”
Just like the existence of gravity, It is accepted as fact that evolution exists, and is ongoing. It has been observed.

Albert Einstien did not do anything that the story mentions.
snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

What is the point of your post BootCamp? What is it supposed to show?

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi wasmit,

Sorry for the late appearance on this thread, only just stumbled across it, so I hope I don’t cover old ground too much here.

From what I can gather, you seem to subscribe to a kind of logical positivistism or verificationism. Let me ask, do you consider something to be true if and only if it can be shown to be analytically true (i.e. mathematical theorems, tautologies etc.) or empirically verifiable?

One argument for a creator that I find to be quite good is the fine tuning argument. However, I’m not sure you fully grasp the significance of how astronomically small the probability of a life permitting universe actually is. For instance you say:

Say the the odds of there being intelligent life on a planet are one billion to one. There are a billion billion planets in the universe, so there must be an abundancy of life.

One billion to one is WAY too big a probability. Physicist Roger Penrose (no slouch in the intellectual department) calculated the probability of a life permitting universe to form as 1 divided by 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123! That number is so small as to be beyond all rational considerations of coming about by chance. Emile Borel, a French mathematician considered a probability much smaller than the one I just mentioned, 10 to the power of -50, can be taken to be the equivalent of a practical impossibility.

Now you also mention that we are somewhat ignorant about the possible values of such constants, I agree, we are. That’s entirely to be expected however, the closest we have gotten to the big bang in time, which was the start of all natural processes, gives us no evidence that these constants are in some way determined by natural processes. How could they be, as the big bang is the start of all material things! If at the start of all material things the values of all of these constants are set, then how could there be a naturalistic explanation for them? In the absence of any naturalistic explanation for the values of the constants, the sensible thing to do is to assume that within reasonable bounds the values are equi-probable.

So what are we left with? Well on the one hand, if we assume naturalism we have no explanation for the constants, and the knowledge that it is practically impossible for a life permitting universe to come about by chance, yet we do indeed have a life permitting universe. On the other hand, we have revelation about a God that has created the universe, and clearly has a special interest, or great love for, human beings. I think the latter option sits much more comfortably with the evidence for fine tuning of the universe.

There are theories about infinite loops of universes (bang-crunch models), each with a different set of constants, and multi-verses. However these are purely speculative and we have absolutely no material evidence for them (in fact, with the bang-crunch ideas, we have evidence against them. Current cosmology shows an accelerating expansion of the universe, with no hint of future contraction). If you are a verificationist/naturalist who insists on evidence, to postulate these alternate explanations seems to be contradicting your own ethos.

Another argument I am quite fond of is Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. Alvin Plantinga is a very eminent philosopher (specialising in epistemology) at Notre Dame. What this argument shows is a deep incompatibility with the theory of evolution and naturalism and our reliable belief producing faculties. He isn’t trying to show evolution is incorrect, rather his argument shows that if one beliefs both naturalism and evolution are true, then he has a defeater for all of his/her beliefs, including naturalism! This post is far too long already, so I won’t go into it further, only point you to an audio presentation of the argument hisdefense.org/OnlineLectures/tabid/136/Default.aspx. An essay is freely available on the internet somewhere, but I can’t seem to find it. Just a word of caution with this argument, a lot of naturalists seem to dismiss it out of hand because they don’t fully understand it (it’s somewhat convoluted), but I urge you to deeply think about it. From what I have seen, it is a well respected argument in philosophy circles that spans many topics including epistemology, cognition, evolutionary psychology etc.

Sorry for the long post

 

[redhen]

wasmit, what did you think about my post 2 pages back?

Just a brief comment. I’ve come to agreement with Fr. Robert Barron and his explanations for different forms of knowledge. Taken from his Youtube comments:

youtube.com/watch?v=p8YTr…e=channel_page

"If you're trying to analyze physical realities, the empirical sciences are most reliable. But if you're looking into subjects such as the human psyche, ethics, the nature of justice, the first cause of being, other epistemic paths are preferable."

Many materialists say something to the effect of “if science can’t describe it, measure it, or analyze it, it’s not real”.

Hmm, how did they come to that conclusion? Did they empirically prove it? This claim is in fact a philosophical claim, and they’ve just hung themselves on their own claim.

I’m a skeptic like you, but I have to admit that science can’t explain all of reality. I suppose that’s why I’ve been visiting these forums for 3 years. I’m still looking for one good reason to believe.

 

[forever47]

I was foolish for challenging you to show something in the Bible as being untrue. I do realize that there are challenges to some passages that may never be resolved.

For what it is worth -

"And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Vashni, and Abiah.

firstborn. 5:1 Le 27:26 Ge 14:20 Here there is an ellipsis of the name of the firstborn, which the margin correctly supplies as Joel. The word {Vashni} when otherwise pointed means second, so that the verse more properly reads And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn (Joel) and the second Abiah.
It appears that the Joel is here lost out of the text; and that {vashni}, which signifies and the second, and which refers to Abiah, is made into a proper name. The Syriac and Arabic read as in Samuel. The marginal references contain the variation in the names given to the same persons, in different parts of sacred history, as far as it can be ascertained; and nearly the whole, that is at present known concerning them, may be learned by carefully consulting them."

Although FSM cannot be disproven, Henderson stated that he “wrote the letter for [his] own amusement as much as anything.” which implies fantasy.

Although I do know that disproving a non-existant “thing” is not feasible, I don’t believe the inability to prove an existant “thing” makes it non-existant. (refer back to my example of love)

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
Peter is but one example. I believe it was James who was thrown from a roof, Steven who was stoned to death, Paul was beheaded and how many other apostles who died violent deaths rather than deny or be quiet about that which they had witnessed with their own eyes.

The point is not that their belief itself “proves” anything. The point I was addressing was whether the resurection can be shown to have occurred.
IF the Resurection was a hoax, then none of these people ever really saw Jesus and moreover they knew that they had not. In addition there would not be a “Holy Spirit” coming upon the Disciples to give them strength and wisdom etc.
If the above is true, we have to ask ourselves if all 12 of these people, the Apostles, plus many more who claimed they saw Jesus after the resurection, would have been willing to die for what they knew was a hoax. Yet we know that they did die, often horrible deaths rather than recant or be quiet.
Another question in the mix would be why perpetrate such a hoax. Could their reasons be such that they would be willing to die for the hoax rather than “fess-up” and live? Yet, so far as I know, we have no record in Christian, Jewish, or Roman histories of any apostle or any other person claiming to have seen Our Lord recanting under questioning or torture. I sure some Christians did, but not those who directly saw Him.

I could see such a hoax being perpetrated if it were for some worldly reason such as the zealots wanting to rise against Rome, but Jesus never taught any such thing. So these people were willing to die, not for a “worldly reason” but for lessons and knowledge that Jesus told them the world would reject. Peace, Love of God and Neighbor, Forgiveness, and Charity to all.

I’m terrible at explaining some of these things, partly because I’m just not well educated enough and pertly because no human language can ever fully explain the wonders of God or God’s thoughts which He places in our hearts.

I’m not asking for a proof, i am looking for a demonstration that a god exists, or evidence that suggests that a god exists.

You are correct. I went back an reread the OP. However, your skepicism at most every turn led me to believe you are looking for “Proof”. Mea Culpa.

Actually I believe that we can offer many, “a demonstration that a god exists, or evidence that suggests that a god exists.” Particularly the evidence part. The simple fact that we are here is, “evidence that suggests that a god exists”. Sure there can be “other explanations” as you somtimes put it, but there is no positive proof that one of the other explanations is correct. Therefore the “Evidence” suggests that God exists.

Peace
James

 

[VociMike]

If (4) is accurate, (I don’t know if it is or not), it shows only that Peter believed in jesus and his message. One person believing in something does nothing towards demonstrating that the belief is true.

No, it is not just a matter of “believing in Jesus and his message”. There were many miraculous acts attributed by the Gospel writers (who were for the most part eyewitnesses) to Jesus. If they did not happen, then the Gospel writers lied. OK, people lie. But who allows themselves to be brutally murdered for a lie? All they had to do was admit that the miracles they wrote about didn’t really happen, and they could have gone on living. But they didn’t, not a single one. What would cause, not just one person, but an entire group of people, to die for a lie of their own making?

Can you give another example in all of human history where a group of people allowed themselves to be brutally killed for a lie they themselves made up, when they could have saved themselves by simply denying their lie?

 

[BootCampJr]

The point of my post was to prove that you can refute anything you’d like. It is my belief that you don’t believe because you just don’t want to, and not out of a lack of understanding. I prefaced my reply indicating that if you were to get something out of it, then that would be great. But, I also said that if it did nothing for you, that would be ok too.

Arguing these points one way or the other has very little effect on you, because you hear what you want to hear, and will believe what you want to believe. 1.75 billion people can’t be wrong, and you be right.

Be that as it may. You are entitled to think and believe what you want, as will I. The difference though, is that I will pray for you regardless of your ideology. Just as you can dismiss the “proofs” that other people have posited, we/I can dismiss yours. I don’t necessarily believe that there are any harmful intentions on your part. We can just call it a day and imply that neither one of us is right.

Good day, and God Bless!