William Lane Craig (apologist)...

Wicknight wrote: »

That would certainly be a very good start.

You seem to be implying that such equally convincing things have already happened, and are ignored. I think we can both agree that isn't true.

Well yes I conclude that these things have happened and in a way that only the proud and haughty in heart cannot see. Maybe God did it this way in order to filter these proud and haughty out from entering His Kingdom. I mean who would want to spend eternity with people who will always put you on trial instead of just trusting what you say? Which is probably why Jesus praised the Father that to babes and sucking are these things revealed and hidden from the wise and prudent. Who knows? Maybe you will never be able to grasp it??? But far be it from me to judge that.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no. You see this is the problem one faces when we introduce the supernatural into the mix. The rules go out the window. Jesus could be anything. He could be demon, a dimensional teleporting spirit imp, a mischievous extra-dimensional alien.

Or exactly what He claimed Himself to be! Why is that “NOT” an option?

Wicknight wrote: »

What religious people want to do is introduce the supernatural in a very limited and confined manner to only demonstrate or support their specific beliefs. In reality it doesn't work like that, onces Pandora's box is open one can't really start picking and choosing what completely reality bending thing the will or will not allow into the mix.

But Christianity is the one religion that has its foundation in a miraculous happening. Miraculous being defined as something that does not usual take place in nature. Which said miraculous happening was the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Which said resurrection if it did not happened as a fact of history makes Christianity meaningless and groundless. Why would God (if He exists) use merely natural means to vindicate His Son to an on looking world when He has all the power and resources to do otherwise and blow all the laws of physics out of the water in the doing of it? Laws that He is not subject to like we are?

Wicknight wrote: »

So it doesn't remain a question of Jesus being either a liar or a lunatic. Jesus could be absolutely anything you can imagine, or cannot even imagine.

No it does remain that. If you believe that He was an alien or demon, then what do you base that on? Please put forth your arguments as to how you came to those conclusions. What makes you call Him these things? What source do you go to? I can make it very clear as to why I believe Him to be what He claimed to be, can you do the same in the case of calling Him a demon or an alien? Define these terms and show us how you came to these conclusions. Don’t just throw strawmen into the mix in the same way that you claim religious people throw the supernatural into the mix. The supernatural is what Christianity is based on, it was not something added to the mix later on. If you knew anything about the history of Christianity then you would know this. But it is very apparent that you are totally ignorant of how the rise of Christianity came about. Whether there was actual supernatural happenings or not you cannot escape that this is what was claimed at the start, it was not a purely natural doctrine nor is Jesus ever portrayed in the earliest manuscripts as being purely naturalistic in His words or deeds.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not in the slightest. Because with the supernatural now introduced into the mix Jesus could be anything pretending to be anything.

Again please put forth your basis for this assumption? Like I already said, the supernatural was not an add on, it was there from the start.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again this is the problem. You want only the reality bending aspects of the supernatural that support your specific position. And you want to go back to all the normal natural rules when dealing with other things. As I said it doesn't work like that.

For one I don’t want the reality bending aspect of the supernatural that supports my specific position of my own accord. I did not ever want these things before I heard them. They have been there from the very beginning before I ever heard of them. They stand by themselves they do not need me to prove them true. I do not believe in them because I want them to be true, rather I believe in them because I’ve yet to hear/see any argument or proof that totally discredits it. Until I do I will continue to hold fast to these things. All I hear from atheists is that these things can’t happen and that’s why they didn’t happen so there must be another explanation for the stories and these explanations are harder to believe IMO than the original story itself. Why can’t they happen? Has science proven that there is nothing other than nature in reality? Until they do then it cannot be assumed blindly that supernatural things cannot happen. Which leaves open the possibility that they can actually happen. And once the possibility exist that these things can actually happen then I see no reason to give up on Christianity based on the negative pronouncements of atheists.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is a point that keeps being brought up and is consistently ignored by believers. It is impossible to determine elements of the supernatural in any meaningful way. You can claim that you "know" God exists and is what you think he is, but that is a meaningless statement because by the very nature of the supernatural you have no way of determining that.

I understand that my own personal experience, that I can only attribute to God, is only for me. I cannot use that as proof that God exists. Likewise why should I allow myself to disregard this experience based on the negative pronouncements made by people who think I’m delusional? Prove that my personal experience with what I believe is God to be false and then I will stop believing in it. But we haven’t even ruled out the possibility that God does not exists yet so how can you be so sure that my experience with Him is not exactly that? But we are not talking about proving God by these means. No we are talking about a fact of History that in 2000 years has not been proven to be false. Dr Craig and Dr Scott have given many positive arguments that point to the validity of these events. Points that atheists just scoff at instead putting forth their own positive arguments to the contrary. And if is actually true that these events took place as reported then that is quite a good indication that God does in fact exist.

Wicknight wrote: »

So any rules you wish to apply to the resurrection story are ultimately pointless. If a man can rise from the dead then he can do anything, including misleading you about rising from the dead.

Well you see that is where the trust comes in. To me, someone going through a death like that in order that He might lift a curse from me tells me that He has my best interests at heart. The charlatan that you envisage would not do that. How can someone who is able to rise from the dead, actually rise from the dead just to prove to you that he can mislead you into thinking that he can rise from the dead? Is that not just the king of all oxymorons?

Wicknight wrote: »

No, you would only have to spend a few seconds thinking about it. I would certainly be amazed and awe struck about him coming back to life, but would also not trust anything he did or said because ultimately it is impossible to judge anything a person who can alter reality says or does.

Oh come now Wicknight. Please exchange the Jesus that is in your head to one that you previously spent three years with in ministry, brotherhood and friendship. Whom you saw do many miraculous things and whom you loved dearly as a teacher and friend before His death And even after His death you grieved greatly until you seen Him alive and vital again. Now tell me that after you have seen Him risen you wouldn’t believe in Him.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't to say I would hold negative feelings or anything, I would be like "I don't trust you you bastard or anything like that" It would simply be the same way I wouldn't trust a waking dream, because with such a person one has lost the ability to determine what is reality and what isn't.

So a reality previously un-discerned by you has now been self evidently revealed to you and you want to go back to simply believing that nature is all there is? I’d go along with that if you told me you were coming down off an LSD trip but in the circumstances described above surely not.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, the position is that it is more likely that someone is mistaken than that the nature of reality was altered.

Yes that is true but only if there is no God. But if there is a God and we have not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist then NO the most probable explanation is what the original story tells us. And that is that God raised Him from the dead.

Wicknight wrote: »

Your assert that this is being "biased" is rather a misrepresentation of what that word means. Being biased towards a position means lacking objectivity. Are you honestly suggesting that is lacking objectivity to be skeptical of claims that the fundamental laws of nature just changed when the only thing that is suggesting they did are verbal claims of people who claim to have met people who claim to have witnessed this?

No, the oldest New Testament manuscripts we have are Paul’s letters. In them we find many mentions of supernatural claims and happenings. These are firsthand accounts not Chinese whispers. They date to within 5 and 20 years of the events they describe and within 40 years in the case for the Gospels. And that’s just the ones we have, there are many who believe that these oldest extant manuscripts are copies of even older manuscripts written even closer to the events they describe but have been lost to history. You show me where there are any extant ancient historical manuscripts that are dated closer to the events they describe than that. You won’t find any. Even the oldest manuscript for the history of Julius Caesar is dated 900 years after the events it describes. The main events in the Gospels are more independently attested to than any other ancient historical accounts that you can find. I’m open to correction on that so I await with much eagerness to be shown a more attested to ancient historical account.

Wicknight wrote: »

But you see that excuse has been used by every religion and cult under the sun to get away from having to actually demonstrate anything of what they say is true.

- You can only see the pink unicorn if you really believe it exists.
- Well I can't see it.
- Because you don't believe it exists?
- Well, no I don't, I can't see it.
- But that is because you don't believe it exists.
- But I can't see it.
- Because you do not believe
- But why would I believe?
- Well I've seen it, why don't you just trust me?
- Because you could just be mad
- But I'm not
- But you believe you see invisible pink unicorns
- Ah, touche.

:pac:

A little light hearted, but I hope you see my point. You believe you see or experience something that you cannot demonstrate in an external or verifiable way, and that I do not see or experience it because I do not have the belief or faith that you do.

The difference between God and pink unicorns is that we can prove that pink unicorns don’t exist well on this planet anyway, not so with God, and until we do then that remains a possibility. My experience not withstanding there is strong evidence that points to the existence of God more so than there is to the contrary. That evidence is the resurrection and there is strong indication that did actually happen as a fact of history as has been discussed ad-infinitum on this forum. You see Christianity is possibly the only religion that states that unless its foundational premise is actually correct then it is a false religion. You don’t find that in other religions, at least none I’m familiar with. Paul said: ”…if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” I Corinthians 15:14-19

Wicknight wrote: »

You could just be wrong.

Yip! And so could you.

Wicknight wrote: »

Now you religion has this in build defense against that by saying that too much evidence or proof goes against God's plan.

Not at all. There is plenty of evidence you just don’t accept it because it goes against you’re a priori viewpoint that it cannot happen without even exposing yourself to the facts that there are that suggest otherwise.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't demonstrate in any externally testable or verifiable fashion God's existence because then my faith in God would be meaningless to him. ie you can't see the invisible unicorn unless you really believe.

Well no that is not what I was saying exactly. Granted God will respond to faith no matter who generates it but the scripture says that faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God. And in another place it states that a measure of faith is given to everyone, it’s what you do with that faith that determines where you end up. Everyone is free to put their faith in whatever they want to. God has declared that those who put their faith in what He says will receive eternal life. Now you might not like that but you are not the criteria definer, God is if He exists.

But we must know what faith is before we can put it in God’s Word. The Greek word for Faith is ‘Pistis’ or ‘Pisteo’. It is verb or action word not simply a noun which is what we have in the English when we say “I have faith”. It is something you do, not something you have although when you do it it becomes something you have as well. Basically all faith is, is an action based upon a belief sustained by confidence. The ABCs of faith as Dr Scott would call it. And it is not restricted to religion either. Everyone has faith by that definition. Everyone acts on beliefs that they have with the confidence in that belief to keep up the action. Take simple walking for instance. When you walk you act on the belief that gravity (unseen) will keep your feet on the ground and not the ceiling. You maintain that action because experience has taught you that it is a reliable and beneficial action to continue doing. Same with faith in God’s word. It starts off tentative but once you get going it gets easier even though the test of that faith get harder. But that is God training you for eternity.

To act on God’s word you need to claim a promise made by God in Hs word that has relevance to your life. When you are in a circumstance that defies one of God’s promises made in His word say you need provision and you trust in God’s name Jehovah Gira (The Lord Provides) then you have what is known as “Saving Faith”. To trust in this name of God you need to claim it by speaking it “Jehovah Gira” or “The Lord will provide” this act of faith connects you to God who is the source of life and puts you in Christ judicially and enables God to put His spirit in you which said spirit in you maintained long enough will bring forth God’s nature in you which is called the fruit of the spirit and you will become the habitation of God through the spirit. That is basically what Christianity is all about, it is not a list of do do this and don’t do that, a checklist mentality that gets religion out of your hair so that you can do whatever you like for the rest of the week, no it is a lifestyle and a relationship with a person who promises that He will never leave you nor forsake you. Acting as though this audience is more important than any t=other audience is what God is looking for in the Christian. Sure we fall short of this all the time but God’s Grace is such that we can always start over with Him, just don’t lose your grip, hang in there no matter what.

Wicknight wrote: »

I find it highly implausible that any super intelligent being who would actually wish to communicate his presence to us would actually set things up in this way.

But that is only based on what your opinion of what a super intelligent being ought to be like not on what the actual super intelligent being has been revealed to be like. See the difference?

Wicknight wrote: »

A far more plausible explanation is that all this is simply an in build excuse, or defense mechanism that your religion (and most others) long ago adopted to avoid challenge to the core beliefs.

Only plausible once you have taken away the possibility that a supernatural power ordered it this way. I have no truck with anyone who wants to challenge my beliefs but do it in such a way that promotes positive points from your side not merely struggling to tear down what has been established on the opposite side. If you cannot give the positives in your argument then you should leave well enough alone. Work away and not believe it but don’t say it’s false without having some strong evidence that supports such a view. Simple saying these things did not happen because they can’t happen is not enough. You must show that it did not happen and cannot not happen. To do that you must adhere to all the facts and that is exactly what you avoid when you endeavor to tear it down.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, I would consider that we have one life and it is a shame to waste it focusing and theorizing over the fantasies of a bunch of middle eastern men who lived and died 3000 years ago.

It was actually 2000 years ago. In any case if it actually happened then time is irrelevant. Can longevity of time make something untrue if it was true to start with? If it’s not true then it’s not because it was 2000 years ago. The majority of historians and not just Christian but Jewish and Muslims alike admit that the disciples did in fact believe in Jesus’ resurrection, they were not convoluting a lie. They also agree that the tomb was in fact empty and that postmortem appearances of Jesus did take place. These are accepted as facts by the majority of New Testament scholars, where they differ is what best explains these facts and I’m with Dr Craig that nothing else explains all these facts together like the resurrection. You can explain away any one of these facts with a natural explanation but that explanation will not explain the other two. Only the resurrection explains all three and that explanation was the first explanation and the most probably of all explanations.

Wicknight wrote: »

There is so much more to life. Particularly if this is our only one.

Oh I’m with you there on that one, particularly if this life is the only life, but if it’s not the only one and there is a heaven to gain, then nothing in this life can compare to that even if you were given everything that this life has to offer. Jesus said of those who forsake all that they have will gain a hundred times that which was forsaken, both in this life and in the life to come. Now that is a promise worth acting on, but it is a paradox. To truly forsake means to not expect anything in fact to not even want anything in return. Only when this truly happens will you be a candidate for that promise. No it hasn’t happened to me yet but as soon as I stop working on it then it might have a chance

Wicknight wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything. You think because Jesus appeals to you it is some how more historically accurate?

Heck no. That’s not what makes it historically accurate. What makes it historically accurate is whether it was in fact historically accurate. It appealing to me is not what makes it historically accurate. And it’s not that it appeals to me that its that it has relevance to me. Non of those others have relevance to me. They didn’t die for my sins. I do not feel forgiven by them or that they have somehow secured my salvation in themselves by themselves. They just don’t speak to me like Jesus. Does that make it historically accurate? Eh no!

Wicknight wrote: »

But he most likely didn't, so they would add the falsity without fear of eternal punishment.

He most likely didn’t naturally but not supernaturally. You have to establish that the supernatural does not exist to be able to say that. And as it was first reported to be a supernatural resurrection and not just someone crawling from a grave with bloodied wounds unwrapped in grave clothes like a mummy then the supernatural explanation is the most probable because not only does this explain the empty tomb but all the other supernatural events that are recorded also.

Wicknight wrote: »

You should also be careful about branding them "liars". The Lewis argument that they were either lunatics or liars is a rather simplistic generalization that really doesn't hold up. As already mentioned on this forum there has been a lot of research into the psychology of mass rumors and things like Chinese whispers. The idea that false stories either start by people lying or being mad is not true.

Lewis was referring to Jesus not the disciples when he said that. Are we now arguing that Jesus Himself didn’t actually claimed these things and attribute them to the disciples? Or do we agree that the Jesus that is recorded as saying these things actually existed and said them?

Wicknight wrote: »

It is easy to see how the reports of the story of the resurrection could arise without anyone consciously lying at all. Things like this happen all the time, there are plenty of modern examples of fictional stories emerging naturally in a culture without anyone actually consciously lying, heck they keep late night call in radio shows ticking over. Remember the story about the asylum seekers who get free hair cuts.

Again your ignorance about Christianity leaks though. Like I said earlier, the oldest manuscripts we have, have Jesus making supernatural claims about Himself. No matter how far you go back these supernatural things are there wherever you turn. They were not later add ons to purely naturalistic events by people not exposed to them. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Christianity started out as anything other than what is claimed in the oldest extant manuscripts. They’ve been there from the get go, some have been lost but there is enough remaining to prove what you are saying to be total garbage.

Wicknight wrote: »

So your assertion that if they were believers their stories must be accurate because believers wouldn't lie doesn't really stand up to much assessment. Fictional stories can originate between the back and forth discussions of believers, particularly in fundamentalist religions and cults, without them all, or even any of them, being consciously aware of making up stories.

Maybe that can be true but it is not true in the case of Christianity as has already been pointed out.

Wicknight wrote: »

Wonderful, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you can historically assess if Jesus actually rose from the dead or not. What speaks to you personally is utterly irrelevant to that question.

I agree. But I wasn’t arguing that my personal experience can prove anything, just sort of threw it in for good measure

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it goes back to what I said earlier about picking and choosing when and in what context we suspend belief in the natural laws of the reality around us. We clearly don't do it all the time. But religious people pick certain things to do it over, particularly when trying to support a position they feel is pivotal to their faith.

But we are not picking and choosing are we? This event is pivotal and it is not because we choose it to be. Like I said earlier Christianity is only religion that actually states that if its pivotal premise is false then all of it is false.

Wicknight wrote: »

As has been pointed out many times there is nothing particularly significant about that. Things like that, unfortunately, happen all the time even to this day. People have died (alone) for far lesser things than the promise of eternal paradise in heaven.

Yeah but all they have to do to stop this horrific torture and death was to renege on their story. And if their story was just a big lie that they made up then it was made up by people who don’t care about the truth and if they do not care about the truth then it’s ridiculously harder to believe that they would in fact die for this lie. And remember that they were not just lying, they were lying about things that pertained to God, the One who would grant them entrance to eternal life, so even if they believed in God they knew that they were lying and going to the wrong place after they died. That’s why I said it is psychologically inconceivable that at least one of them would have reneged and said that it was all a lie and that they didn’t want to die such a horrible death especially if they were going to do so alone not even knowing if any of the others were still alive or not.

Wicknight wrote: »

In fact I would imagine that facing death would make someone dive head first into their belief in salvation and an afterlife, rather than the other way around recanting what they believed.

But they didn’t believe in it remember? They lied remember? Do you see where this is going? Dead end’s Ville. Even if they believed in God they know that they are lying and not going to get any salvation. Hello!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

I suppose it isn't a good time to point out that if they all died alone who recorded how they died?

No, it is a great time to point it out. Until you can show me alternative histories for these deaths then the early church fathers unchallenged records will have to suffice for now. Like I said, you find the one who reneged. Where are they and where is it recorded that they did in fact renege? Obviously they cannot record their own deaths themselves so we have to go with the next best thing unless you have a record describes things differently and that can refute what has been universally accepted by historians throughout the centuries that all the disciples (save John) died horrible deaths for their beliefs.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not in the slightest Soul Winner. If you apply that to these men you must apply that same logic to any one who has ever been put to death for a belief in a supernatural happening. Which is nonsense.

Well who else does this? Who are they? I know people die for their beliefs all the time and that doesn’t make their beliefs true but they truly believed in it, but the disciples died having the power to stop it if they just reneged on their testimony about Jesus’ resurrection.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is a horrendously strong indication that they believed what they believed, but little more.

Nothing to you but if what they believed in was real enough to them to die for then its truth should be very a big deal to everyone.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that is incredibly naive of you. Who sets out to make up a religion that looks like it is made up.

Nobody I guess but 2000 years of scrutiny should see through it no?

Wicknight wrote: »

One thing the Christian New Testament scholars all agree on is that the reporters (who were reporting on the reports of the resurrection) were not lying.

Not with ya. Can you elaborate please? Was Paul eyewitness to his own conversion? Or did he hear it from somebody else?

Wicknight wrote: »

Ask a Muslim scholar if the New Testament reports are lies, see what he tells you.

There are quite a few that agree to the three facts mentioned above, empty tomb, post mortem appearances, and the Disciples true belief in these events. They probably won’t’ agree with the best explanation for these facts but they do agree that the above are indeed facts. In any case Muslims believe that Jesus was the second greatest prophet after Mohamed who performed many miracles.

Wicknight wrote: »

And I think you will find the vast majority of Christians (including yourself), now and then, didn't follow that to the literal letter (and you can get plenty of reasons why all Christians aren't homeless and estranged from their families). They still believed they were going to eternal paradise for ever and ever.

Like I said, once I stop working on it then it might happen

Wicknight wrote: »

The most appealing thing about Christianity is that it is rather flexible in interpretation, meaning it can be many things to many people, all offering them wonderful things such as an after life.

Yet another uneducated assumption with regard to Christianity. Read what Lewis said about Jesus again. You can’t just put Him on the shelf with all the other respected founders of religion. He was either God, a nut or just a mad man. Just because people cherry pick what they like about Christianity and disregard the rest does nothing to the claims made by Jesus.

Wicknight wrote: »

How else do you explain all the Christians out there who don't lead particularly Christian lives (in your view)?

The true Christian life is the one I explained earlier. Faith in God’s promises NOT perfection according to the fleshly works of the law, which as Paul says: If they could save anyone then Christ is dead in vain.

Wicknight wrote: »

I certainly agree with that, which is why I think the convoluted and overly complicated model of reality that your religion puts forward is most likely not true.

Only from a purely naturalistic point of view though. Is that all there is? No one knows ,not even the most ardent naturalist will admit they believe that.

Wicknight wrote: »

I am currently reading a book about physics by Brian Greene that I would heartily recommend. I challenge anyone not to get a tingle in their spine when they fully realise the implications of what Einstein discovered when he realize that velocity through space and time are connected, and the faster one moves in space the slower time is for them.

The true nature of reality, as counter-intuitive as it turns out to be, is far more profound that anything you will find in the pages of the Bible.[/QUOTE]

What is its title? If you like him then may I recommend Frank Tipler’s “The physics of immorality”