Jump to content


Photo

6 Days Or Billions Of Years?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#21 Nexys

Nexys

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Astronomy, Education, Media, Politics, Psychology, Sociology
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Indiana

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:59 AM

On your point of theism vs. deism as terminology, I can see where you are coming from. Perhaps it was simply a semantic point about what each term means. However, given the overall feeling of theists (particularly of Christians), I will concede to you that theism generally denotes belief in a deity that has an active role in the governance of our world. Thus, it would be more accurate to state that I am a deist and not a theist. (Though, in my defense, "deistic evoluationist" isn't an option for me to choose. Since I am not an atheist, nor a member of any of the organized religions listed in the options, I have to choose the option that most closely resembles my own point of view).

Now, all of that said, I still do not see, and have not seen, any evidence to suggest the existence of a god the way Christians describe it. I have heard, since I was a small child, that "evidence of God is all around us." That is usually stated with such a factual atttitude, as though the person is stating "grass is green and water is wet." It appears to be self-evident to the believer, but I am sorry to say that it is not. If it were, debates and discussions such as this would not be necessary.

I was raised Christian, and was Christian for many years. However, events in my own life and my own evaluation of the evidence available have led me to believe that the god of Christianity does not exist. Yes, I do believe in a god, but not in the type of god who is actively involved in the governance of our world or "No name calling" cares about the attitudes and actions of humans. I do not believe in a hell, and do not believe in the notion of reward or punishment in the afterlife. I do believe in a "heaven" (though, to be fair, I am only using that term because it is the one most people in Western society use). However, I believe that "heaven" is merely another plane of existence, and that all of us...from Mother Theresa to Hitler, from Ghandi to Genghis Khan...end up in the same place after we die.

Are my beliefs fully in line with classical deism? No, not exactly. Are they fully in line with most people's view of theism? Agan, no. However, my beliefs are what they are, and I have come to them myself after years of internal struggle and evaluation of the evidence and experiences I have had and have seen.

#22 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 29 August 2013 - 05:59 AM

Now, all of that said, I still do not see, and have not seen, any evidence to suggest the existence of a god the way Christians describe it. I have heard, since I was a small child, that "evidence of God is all around us." That is usually stated with such a factual atttitude, as though the person is stating "grass is green and water is wet." It appears to be self-evident to the believer, but I am sorry to say that it is not. If it were, debates and discussions such as this would not be necessary.
 

 

Sure, but I think what you mean is that proof of God is not found all around us, rather than evidence. Evidence is not the kind of thing that prevents debates and discussions. If proof of God was all around us then I think you could easily rule out the existence of a Christian God. I think that the evidence of the Christian God is as strong as you would expect it to be given the purposes and desires that God has for us. The evidence is strong, but amazingly enough there is always enough wiggle room for someone to deny it if their desires to do so overpowers and deceives them.



#23 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 August 2013 - 05:59 AM

I deny your god because I don't believe in him. I am still a theist, and believe in a creator god, just not as Christians define it. And as for bias, that it fine if you want to think that. But I need more than a biased Christian news source to believe the claims in your video.

 

I believe in Him because the Holy Spirit affirms the truthfulness of scripture and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Also I have seen Him answer countless numbers of answers to prayer over the last 45 yrs and so have many of my Christian companions...some of which were prayers that I never even told another soul about and yet God answered in detail about the specific needs. The first news source to Jeff Markhams resurrection from the dead was a secular Miami, Florida T.V. station so don't accuse the folks from the Christian brodcasting station of spreading a falsehood.

 

Also you deliberately avoided the issue of the existence of Christianity in light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as per His divine promise that He would do so. Why?



#24 Nexys

Nexys

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Astronomy, Education, Media, Politics, Psychology, Sociology
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Indiana

Posted 29 August 2013 - 08:06 AM

 
Sure, but I think what you mean is that proof of God is not found all around us, rather than evidence. Evidence is not the kind of thing that prevents debates and discussions. If proof of God was all around us then I think you could easily rule out the existence of a Christian God. I think that the evidence of the Christian God is as strong as you would expect it to be given the purposes and desires that God has for us. The evidence is strong, but amazingly enough there is always enough wiggle room for someone to deny it if their desires to do so overpowers and deceives them.

Proof or Evidence, the term matters not. Semantics aside, I have not seen any proof/evidence/indication/reason to believe in the Christian god.

 
I believe in Him because the Holy Spirit affirms the truthfulness of scripture and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Also I have seen Him answer countless numbers of answers to prayer over the last 45 yrs and so have many of my Christian companions...some of which were prayers that I never even told another soul about and yet God answered in detail about the specific needs. The first news source to Jeff Markhams resurrection from the dead was a secular Miami, Florida T.V. station so don't accuse the folks from the Christian brodcasting station of spreading a falsehood.
 
Also you deliberately avoided the issue of the existence of Christianity in light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as per His divine promise that He would do so. Why?

First, I never said anyone was "spreading a falsehood." So, don't accuse me of something I have not done. I have simply stated that I see nothing in the video (which comes from a Christian network and is, therefore, biased) to indicate that the case in question is truly the work of the Christian god.

And the reason I avoided your question is because it is irrelevant. Christianity was spread by people based on their belief in the resurrection of the historical figure known as Jesus. There is no evidence of his actual resurrection beyond personal accounts, which anyone with any understanding of evidence and reasoning will know are highly suspect and flawed.

#25 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 August 2013 - 10:07 AM

Proof or Evidence, the term matters not. Semantics aside, I have not seen any proof/evidence/indication/reason to believe in the Christian god.

First, I never said anyone was "spreading a falsehood." So, don't accuse me of something I have not done. I have simply stated that I see nothing in the video (which comes from a Christian network and is, therefore, biased) to indicate that the case in question is truly the work of the Christian god.

And the reason I avoided your question is because it is irrelevant. Christianity was spread by people based on their belief in the resurrection of the historical figure known as Jesus. There is no evidence of his actual resurrection beyond personal accounts, which anyone with any understanding of evidence and reasoning will know are highly suspect and flawed.

 

Then if they weren't spreading falsehood they were telling the truth.

 

Oh, but you have seen the evidence for the existence of the Christian God...but like most skeptics you deny what's right in front of your face. You see, everything from the largest thing we know about; the universe...as measured in length, width, height (3 in 1) to the smallest thing we know about, the atom (protons, neutrons, and electrons, 3 in 1) are a reflection of the Creator God who made all things. The truth is that every single living thing on earth is held together by a cross-shaped molecule called 'Laminin' in accordance with Colossians 1:16-18 which tells us that all things were made by Christ and all things consist (are held together) by Him.

 

m51whirlpool-galaxy-core-cross_th.jpglaminin-large.jpg

 

You said, "And the reason I avoided your question is because it is irrelevant. Christianity was spread by people based on their belief in the resurrection of the historical figure known as Jesus."

 

That isn't the truth. Christianity was spread by those who personally SAW Jesus alive after His death. It is the reason why the faith survived despite his death.



#26 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 29 August 2013 - 10:15 AM

 I think that the evidence of the Christian God is as strong as you would expect it to be given the purposes and desires that God has for us. The evidence is strong, but amazingly enough there is always enough wiggle room for someone to deny it if their desires to do so overpowers and deceives them.

 

That point really resonates with me.  There's always wiggle room, and it seems God makes sure of this.  We see it in Moses' generation who passed through the Red Sea, yet couldn't get through the Jordan River.  

 

Seems there's just enough evidence for the seeker, but not quite enough for the resister.  When you think about it, it's as we would expect from a long suffering God unwilling that any toe perish, but also unwilling that any should be forced.  Not sure if those are the perfect words, but you get the idea.  



#27 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 August 2013 - 10:26 AM

Seems there's just enough evidence for the seeker, but not quite enough for the resister.  

 

Bullseye, brother.



#28 Nexys

Nexys

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Astronomy, Education, Media, Politics, Psychology, Sociology
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Indiana

Posted 29 August 2013 - 10:55 AM

 
Then if they weren't spreading falsehood they were telling the truth.


Imagine your child comes running in to the room one night while you are asleep. "Daddy, Daddy!" He screams. "Yes, my son?" you answer. "I saw a monster under my bed."

You agree to humor him. Maybe he did see a monster. Maybe he didn't. You're going to look for yourself.

You escort him back to his bedroom and ask him to show you what he saw. He points at the darkness under his bed at a dark mass.

"There! There is the monster, Daddy!" He screams as he begins to cry.

You reach under the bed and pull out the "monster." Turns out, it isn't a monster. What he saw was nothing more than a blanket that had gotten pushed under the bed. In the darkness, and due to his childlike outlook on the world, the dark blanket under a dark bed looked like a monster. He was so utterly convinced that it WAS a monster that any other possibility, such as that it was just a blanket, did not even occur to him.

So, my question is, was your son telling the truth or spreading a falsehood? Or, as is the case here and in your video, was he telling you what he THOUGHT was true since he lacked sufficient evidence to know otherwise?

That is what I am saying. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that this "resurrection" is the result of the Christian god. However, due to your Christian worldview, and the lack of a definitive answer otherwise, you just assume that it was your god. You aren't, necessarily, spreading a falsehood (which would indicate a conscious decision to lie, at least in the way I have always heard that term used), but you aren't telling the truth either. You are simply using your worldview to fill in gaps in information.

That is just what the doctors did.

Now, we can get in to a semantic debate about what "spreading a falsehood" means, and whether or not that term denotes a conscious decision to lie. To me, it does. If it does not to you, and you simply meant that false information was bring spread regardless of intent, then you have my sincerest apologies for misunderstanding your position.
 

Oh, but you have seen the evidence for the existence of the Christian God...but like most skeptics you deny what's right in front of your face. You see, everything from the largest thing we know about; the universe...as measured in length, width, height (3 in 1) to the smallest thing we know about, the atom (protons, neutrons, and electrons, 3 in 1) are a reflection of the Creator God who made all things. The truth is that every single living thing on earth is held together by a cross-shaped molecule called 'Laminin' in accordance with Colossians 1:16-18 which tells us that all things were made by Christ and all things consist (are held together) by Him.


 Are you familiar with "Confirmation Bias?" Because, that is really what you are doing here. A cross is a common geometric shape, but since the shape is the same shape as your holy symbol, your confirmation bias kicks in and you assume that there must be a connection between the shape of the molecule and your religion. I'm sorry, but I will need MUCH more information than simple coincidence to believe the claim you are making.

http://en.wikipedia....nfirmation_bias
 

You said, "And the reason I avoided your question is because it is irrelevant. Christianity was spread by people based on their belief in the resurrection of the historical figure known as Jesus."
 
That isn't the truth. Christianity was spread by those who personally SAW Jesus alive after His death. It is the reason why the faith survived despite his death.


It was spread by people. Correct? Correct.

Now, whether they "saw" him "alive after his death" is a matter for debate, since I know of no evidence to confirm this claim. The claim is that they saw him alive, yes. This claim spread to others, who believed it (hence my previous statement) and spread it to others, etc. However, no evidence of the resurrection of your savior exists.

All of that said, if you can provide me unbiased evidence to show where I am wrong on this, I will be happy to take a look at it.

#29 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 August 2013 - 01:21 PM

Imagine your child comes running in to the room one night while you are asleep. "Daddy, Daddy!" He screams. "Yes, my son?" you answer. "I saw a monster under my bed."

 

And what if I find a real monster? Your inability to grasp the reality of the supernatural does not change the reality.  


Though I have never used this forum to boast of my personal experiences the fact is that I have experienced the supernatural on a number of occasions ...with evidence...with witnesses. And we managed to record several of them. And we are by no means alone.[/quote]

 

So, my question is, was your son telling the truth or spreading a falsehood? Or, as is the case here and in your video, was he telling you what he THOUGHT was true since he lacked sufficient evidence to know otherwise?


 

What happened to Jeff Markham in his resurrection from the dead is a reality and you can't change that reality no matter what you say. If you had any real desire to be honest in this matter then you might just find his phone number and call him ...or Dr.Crandall and talk to them personally. OR ...perhaps, even better, the people who were with Dr.Crandall in the same operating room at the time of Markhams revival. But after years of relating this account to skeptics like you I have never seen one yet that was willing to take the matter to the bottom line and make such contacts.


That is what I am saying. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that this "resurrection" is the result of the Christian god.



Oh, but there was/is. You are just living in denial because you can't grasp a miracle working God. Here is some of Jeff's own words in the matter from the SECULAR station that first reported it.

 


Now, we can get in to a semantic debate about what "spreading a falsehood" means, and whether or not that term denotes a conscious decision to lie. To me, it does. If it does not to you, and you simply meant that false information was bring spread regardless of intent, then you have my sincerest apologies for misunderstanding your position.

 

You like to play with words,don't you? That's typical. We see it often here among skeptics of scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ. The reason that the 'information was being spread' is because Jeff Markham actually did rise from the dead AFTER Dr. Crandall prayed for him.


It was spread by people. Correct? Correct.


Professional people...who were observed by other professional people...in a professional setting. You, sir, are living in denial.

 

Now, whether they "saw" him "alive after his death" is a matter for debate, since I know of no evidence to confirm this claim.

   

 

You didn't bother to look....at least not far enough. Jeff Markham's testimony is available to all on You Tube.

 

The claim is that they saw him alive, yes. This claim spread to others, who believed it (hence my previous statement) and spread it to others, etc. However, no evidence of the resurrection of your savior exists.


You deliberately ignore the fact that had He not risen from the dead his followers would not have gone out and preached hsi gospel and still less would they have died for a 'known' liar. I have no trust in your reasoning on this matter. It is pure sinful bias.


All of that said, if you can provide me unbiased evidence to show where I am wrong on this, I will be happy to take a look at it.

 

I already did and you turned your nose up to it after a cursory examination of the video clip testimony. BUT...I can do so again! Example:

 

Yet I expect no different treatment of the facts by you concerning this matter than I just read above. You and those like you don't care about facts...you deny facts.



#30 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 29 August 2013 - 01:25 PM

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that this "resurrection" is the result of the Christian god. ...

 

Nexys, you keep saying this, but I'm compelled to ask, how do you know there is no evidence?  Are you claiming to have personally examined all the evidence that is out there?  

 

Can you offer any support for your claim that you've examined all possible evidence?  And if you're not saying that can you please share with us all the lines of evidence you've personally investigated surrounding the Resurrection of Christ?  What are your sources.  Are you just trusting skeptic websites and writings?  



#31 Hesbehindyou

Hesbehindyou

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • UK

Posted 29 August 2013 - 02:30 PM

If proof of God was all around us then I think you could easily rule out the existence of a Christian God. I think that the evidence of the Christian God is as strong as you would expect it to be given the purposes and desires that God has for us. The evidence is strong, but amazingly enough there is always enough wiggle room for someone to deny it if their desires to do so overpowers and deceives them.

That point really resonates with me. There's always wiggle room, and it seems God makes sure of this. We see it in Moses' generation who passed through the Red Sea, yet couldn't get through the Jordan River.

Seems there's just enough evidence for the seeker, but not quite enough for the resister. When you think about it, it's as we would expect from a long suffering God unwilling that any toe perish, but also unwilling that any should be forced. Not sure if those are the perfect words, but you get the idea.


I first encountered this argument in a Philip Yancey book and I have to say I've never understood it. Yancey's argument--sorry UD and Calminian if this isn't what you two are saying--is that God desires that man turns to Him of his own volition: that he freely chooses to accept the gift of Salvation through Christ's death on the cross because he desires communion with God. If God were to make Himself manifest, so that no doubt was possible in anyone's mind, peoples' freewill to disbelieve would be overwhelmed and believing in God would become something forced. So God leaves some room for doubt, enough for the unbeliever to live a life of unbelief if they wish to.

Firstly I don't understand the depiction of belief itself as a 'choice'. This isn't how I experience belief. When I believe something I am convicted of it, or rather it convicts me. Many things I believe are true I wish weren't true. Therefore if I remain unconvinced of something, it isn't that I choose not to believe it.

But my main problem is, I don't understand how God being manifest, even the eternal consequences of sin being manifest, could rob anyone of the freewill to be a Christian. On the contrary, I would say that expunging all doubt would leave a person with nothing but a freewill choice to make.

Here's an analogy: imagine I'm a salesman and I want people to sign a contract on very poor terms. So I couch it in ambiguous language and put some of the most egregious terms in small print upside down in the margins of the page. When I'm hauled up under the trade descriptions act, I tell the judge that if the contract had been clear no-one in their right mind would have signed it, so I was acting in the interests of the consumer by ensuring they had the freewill to sign or not sign without being influenced either way.

Obviously no-one would be convinced by this defence as it's totally backwards. To justifiably hold someone to the terms of a contract, it's expected that the terms be abundantly clear. Someone can get out of a contract if they can show they were left in the dark about something known.

Yet that's what Yancey seems to be saying: God leaves room for doubt about the consequences of sin, so people can be sinners if they want to be. I appreciate there are verses that seem to support this view, but the message that comes across to me from the Bible (and I am not well-read on it) is that people don't accept Christ precisely because the terms are clear. The cost of discipleship with Christ is total rejection of one's wordly idols (Luke 14:25-33), but people love the world too much to do that (John 3:19). That's what the story of the rich young ruler seems to be about.

I can say it about myself. I believe in God; I believe Christ dies on the cross for our sins and was resurrected; I believe God offers salvation through Jesus Christ, even though we don't deserve it. I've felt convicted of my sinfulness and prayed to God for forgiveness. But I know I'm not a Christian, since I don't show any fruit. Today I love the things of the world and seek them just as much as did before I thought I was saved. If tomorrow some agent of God appeared and told me to drop what I was doing and go with them for Christ's sake, and to not even go home and say goodbye to my family (Matt 10:37) or attend my father's funeral, I'm not sure I could do it.

By the way it might have been Roger Forster, not Philip Yancey.



#32 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 29 August 2013 - 03:00 PM

I first encountered this argument in a Philip Yancey book and I have to say I've never understood it. Yancey's argument--sorry UD and Calminian if this isn't what you two are saying--is that God desires that man turns to Him of his own volition: that he freely chooses to accept the gift of Salvation through Christ's death on the cross because he desires communion with God. If God were to make Himself manifest, so that no doubt was possible in anyone's mind, peoples' freewill to disbelieve would be overwhelmed and believing in God would become something forced. So God leaves some room for doubt, enough for the unbeliever to live a life of unbelief if they wish to.

 

Yeah, that seems to be correct.  IOWs God's edict is, if you seek you will find, if you seek not, you will find not.  

 

This doesn't mean that evidence is not there, God just won't force feed you the evidence or throw it in your face.  You do need to seek.  I didn't make the rule.  

 

Firstly I don't understand the depiction of belief itself as a 'choice'. This isn't how I experience belief. When I believe something I am convicted of it, or rather it convicts me. Many things I believe are true I wish weren't true. Therefore if I remain unconvinced of something, it isn't that I choose not to believe it.

 

To an extent this is true, but don't be fooled into always thinking it's true.  Our ability to rationalize behavior is quite amazing, and we use it more often than we think.  

 

But my main problem is, I don't understand how God being manifest, even the eternal consequences of sin being manifest, could rob anyone of the freewill to be a Christian. On the contrary, I would say that expunging all doubt would leave a person with nothing but a freewill choice to make.

 

But define manifest.  For God says it's already manifest.  

 

Rom. 1:19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.  20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 

 

Now you might say, "well, that's not manifest in my mind!"  But in God's mind it is (presuming scripture correct).

 

You have to also be precise about what faith in God really means.  It's not just belief or assent.  The greek word basically means trust. Modern connotations of the word are often wrong.  

 

Here's an analogy: imagine I'm a salesman and I want people to sign a contract on very poor terms. So I couch it in ambiguous language and put some of the most egregious terms in small print upside down in the margins of the page. When I'm hauled up under the trade descriptions act, I tell the judge that if the contract had been clear no-one in their right mind would have signed it, so I was acting in the interests of the consumer by ensuring they had the freewill to sign or not sign without being influenced either way.


Obviously no-one would be convinced by this defence as it's totally backwards. To justifiably hold someone to the terms of a contract, it's expected that the terms be abundantly clear. Someone can get out of a contract if they can show they were left in the dark about something known.

 

Well, the ambiguity of the language would ultimately be up to the judge, and in the case of the Bible, God is the judge.  To use another analogy, try that with a traffic violation. Go to the judge and say that you interpreted that stop sign different than the cop. Or that you didn't do your due diligence to learn what the law was.  

 

I can say it about myself. I believe in God; I believe Christ dies on the cross for our sins and was resurrected; I believe God offers salvation through Jesus Christ, even though we don't deserve it. I've felt convicted of my sinfulness and prayed to God for forgiveness. But I know I'm not a Christian, since I don't show any fruit. Today I love the things of the world and seek them just as much as did before I thought I was saved. If tomorrow some agent of God appeared and told me to drop what I was doing and go with them for Christ's sake, and to not even go home and say goodbye to my family (Matt 10:37) or attend my father's funeral, I'm not sure I could do it.

 

Well, sometimes admitting our weakness is the best way to go.  First  you need to be honest with and about yourself.   Sometimes you just need to say, Lord I believe, but help me in my unbelief!  You only need faith the size of a mustard seed, yet it must be genuine faith—a faith that produces fruit—and faith that faces you toward God in your intent and away from the world.  

 

If you get a chance read through Abraham's story.  You think you feel bad now, look at the choices he had to make.  I can tell you right now, I'm failing the Isaac test. But that was the example left for us by him who is the father of our faith.  He trusted in situations most would not.  And he reaped great blessings for it. 



#33 Nexys

Nexys

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Astronomy, Education, Media, Politics, Psychology, Sociology
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Indiana

Posted 29 August 2013 - 03:27 PM

 
Nexys, you keep saying this, but I'm compelled to ask, how do you know there is no evidence?  Are you claiming to have personally examined all the evidence that is out there?  
 
Can you offer any support for your claim that you've examined all possible evidence?  And if you're not saying that can you please share with us all the lines of evidence you've personally investigated surrounding the Resurrection of Christ?  What are your sources.  Are you just trusting skeptic websites and writings?  


If you have any actual evidence, I am happy to examine it. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove or disprove the assertion that the Christian god resurrected this man. I did not make the claim, others did. So, the burden of proof lies with those making that claim.

But, hey, nice attempt at shifting the burden of proof!

#34 Hesbehindyou

Hesbehindyou

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • UK

Posted 29 August 2013 - 03:30 PM

Yeah, that seems to be correct.  IOWs God's edict is, if you seek you will find, if you seek not, you will find not.  
 
This doesn't mean that evidence is not there, God just won't force feed you the evidence or throw it in your face.  You do need to seek.  I didn't make the rule.

 

That verse does support Yancey's argument--I acknowledge that. And there are others too. 
 

To an extent this is true, but don't be fooled into always thinking it's true.  Our ability to rationalize behavior is quite amazing, and we use it more often than we think.

 

Yes, I agree we can kid ourselves. Do you think then, that Yancey is saying God makes it so that those who choose not to seek can live a life without constant cognitive dissonance? I remember Roger Forster explained God's 'hardening' or Pharaoh's like this. God was strengthening Pharaoh's own resolve.

 

But define manifest.  For God says it's already manifest.

 

Ok but I'm not the one saying it isn't manifest.
 

You have to also be precise about what faith in God really means.  It's not just belief or assent. The greek word basically means trust. Modern connotations of the word are often wrong.

 

Well while I didn't use the word faith, and I'll admit the arguments put forth by Lordship Salvation vs Free Grace people get my head in a spin, I totally agree that saving faith is not simply believing by itself--I'd have thought that was clear from what I said later.
 

Well, the ambiguity of the language would ultimately be up to the judge, and in the case of the Bible, God is the judge.  To use another analogy, try that with a traffic violation. Go to the judge and say that you interpreted that stop sign different than the cop. Or that you didn't do your due diligence to learn what the law was.

 

Good analogy. I think the judge in this case would not say, "ah yes the sign is deliberately a bit ambiguous so that people have the freewill to ignore it and not stop if they choose." He would say that the sign is not ambiguous, and that this is precisely why ignoring it can be chalked up to the volition of the offender.

 

If you get a chance read through Abraham's story.  You think you feel bad now, look at the choices he had to make.  I can tell you right now, I'm failing the Isaac test. But that was the example left for us by him who is the father of our faith.  He trusted in situations most would not.  And he reaped great blessings for it.

 

Thanks for the advice.



#35 Nexys

Nexys

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Astronomy, Education, Media, Politics, Psychology, Sociology
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Indiana

Posted 29 August 2013 - 03:57 PM

 And what if I find a real monster? Your inability to grasp the reality of the supernatural does not change the reality.  
Though I have never used this forum to boast of my personal experiences the fact is that I have experienced the supernatural on a number of occasions ...with evidence...with witnesses. And we managed to record several of them. And we are by no means alone.

Did you ACTUALLY read the hypothetical scenario I presented? Because, your cut and paste job here skipped over the entire point I was making. So, why don't you go back, read what I wrote, and actually address the point instead of taking this obvious copout by trying to shift the discussion?
 

 What happened to Jeff Markham in his resurrection from the dead is a reality and you can't change that reality no matter what you say. If you had any real desire to be honest in this matter then you might just find his phone number and call him ...or Dr.Crandall and talk to them personally. OR ...perhaps, even better, the people who were with Dr.Crandall in the same operating room at the time of Markhams revival. But after years of relating this account to skeptics like you I have never seen one yet that was willing to take the matter to the bottom line and make such contacts.

Try researching "burden of proof." If you are so hopeful that I will believe the claim that the doctor resurrected a dead man by praying, then provide some sort of evidence beyond a video of people saying "Yeah, it really happened that way, honest!" Anecdotal evidence isn't worth the air it's breathed in to.

Oh, but there was/is. You are just living in denial because you can't grasp a miracle working God. Here is some of Jeff's own words in the matter from the SECULAR station that first reported it.

Again, anecdotal evidence. Try something more substantial, or concede that you can't.
 

 You like to play with words,don't you? That's typical. We see it often here among skeptics of scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you for the ad hominem attack. I believe those are against forum rules, are they not? When I offered my apology for misrepresenting your stance, if I had indeed done so, I was being sincere. But, I suppose sincerity isn't appreciated when it comes from a skeptic, huh?

And, for the record, I was talking about proof of the resurrection of Jesus here. I moved on past the aforementioned doctor. Do try to keep up, okay?

The reason that the 'information was being spread' is because Jeff Markham actually did rise from the dead AFTER Dr. Crandall prayed for him.

Again, I was talking about the spread of Christianity. Again, please, try to keep up with the debate.

Professional people...who were observed by other professional people...in a professional setting. You, sir, are living in denial.     You didn't bother to look....at least not far enough. Jeff Markham's testimony is available to all on You Tube. 

If "living in denial" means that I don't accept anecdotal evidence simply because it conforms to my biased worldview the way you do, then I guess I will wear your attack as a badge of honor.

You deliberately ignore the fact that had He not risen from the dead his followers would not have gone out and preached hsi gospel and still less would they have died for a 'known' liar.

And do you have any ACTUAL evidence that Jesus died and was resurrected three days later? If so, please, provide it.

I have no trust in your reasoning on this matter. It is pure sinful bias.

I have no trust in your reasoning on this matter either. It is pure confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

I already did and you turned your nose up to it after a cursory examination of the video clip testimony. BUT...I can do so again! Example: Yet I expect no different treatment of the facts by you concerning this matter than I just read above. You and those like you don't care about facts...you deny facts.

Are you quite through with the ad hominem attacks? If so, I will be happy to continue to discuss things with you rationally and calmly. If not, well then I will simply move on. I, for one, am trying to be intellectually honest here and discuss things like an adult. But, all I am greeted with in response is insults and attacks for not accepting your word or your clips of anecdotal evidence as hard and fast truth.

#36 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:28 PM

Good analogy. I think the judge in this case would not say, "ah yes the sign is deliberately a bit ambiguous so that people have the freewill to ignore it and not stop if they choose." He would say that the sign is not ambiguous, and that this is precisely why ignoring it can be chalked up to the volition of the offender.

 

I'll acknowledge you have a point there.  Is God making it ambiguous for the sake of creating freedom? But I have to wonder, what else should God be doing?  In addition to the creation declaring the glory of God, should he also be broadcasting the truth in our ears 24/7 orally and literally?  Obviously He's chosen not to do this.

 

I think what God has decided is that He is going to allow resisters the ability to shut him out if they choose.  Paul put it like this:

 

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 

 

I've often wondered if Paul specifically had the antediluvian world in mind when he penned this.  This was a very different time, and it appears that belief in the existence of the Creator God was not really in doubt by anyone.  But they still rebelled and didn't trust in Him.  Look at Cain for instance.  He had the privilege of having a face-to-face with God, and still rebelled and murdered Abel.  He wan't doubting God's existence.  He just hated God and rejected his wisdom.  

 

Now the one in court fighting a traffic ticket may say to the judge that enough was not done to enable him to understand the law correctly.  He might argue that more could have been done in the way of public education, etc.  But the judge may also disagree and charge that the man has a responsibility to know what the law is.  Instead of the government come and seeking him out to explain it, he needed to do his own research.  I think the same is true for God.  He's God and He says seek and you will find.  That doesn't meant He's hard to find, but to the non-seeker it is impossible.  He's decided that this is how it's going to be.  



#37 Hesbehindyou

Hesbehindyou

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 120 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • UK

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:37 PM

Good points. There are quite a lot of Christians who believe, contrary to Yancey, that in fact atheism does not exist at all, that everyone really knows God exists, and that professing atheists are simply lying to themselves and others. This view sits quite well with reformed theology and I have a lot of sympathy with it.



#38 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:58 PM

Good points. There are quite a lot of Christians who believe, contrary to Yancey, that in fact atheism does not exist at all, that everyone really knows God exists, and that professing atheists are simply lying to themselves and others. This view sits quite well with reformed theology and I have a lot of sympathy with it.

 

Are there sincere atheists?  I'd say yes.  The bible says all men know, but also says they can suppress the truth in unrighteousness.  

 

I guess it get's  down to how you define your terms.  I can kinda see where both sides are coming from.  



#39 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 30 August 2013 - 02:11 AM

Proof or Evidence, the term matters not. Semantics aside, I have not seen any proof/evidence/indication/reason to believe in the Christian god.

 

You were a Christian and yet you say there is ZERO evidence for Christianity??? That doesn't quite add up. Something tells me that you have emotional issues with Christianity rather than evidential, but even if you don't, saying that there is no evidence at all for Christianity is evidence that you are tangled up in a web of denial.

 

One of the strongest objections against Christianity is the fact that it makes the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, which is often sneered at by atheists because it is "unscientific" and bizarre. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof we are told and yet when this is given people like you use the wiggle room you have to make the claim that it doesn't even count as evidence!

 

Calypsis4 submitted a video that gives clear evidence and extraordinary proof that the claims of Chistianity have in fact been verified, and guess what, only yesterday in the Swedish press (which in itself is almost a miracle) the following video was published:

 

 

So if this is not evidence that the claims of Christianity then please explain why it is not. Simply saying the it might have a naturalisic cause does not do that. I could just as easily turn around and say that there isn't evidence of ANYTHING AT ALL using that gigantic loophole!



#40 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 30 August 2013 - 03:53 AM

That point really resonates with me.  There's always wiggle room, and it seems God makes sure of this.  We see it in Moses' generation who passed through the Red Sea, yet couldn't get through the Jordan River.  

 

Seems there's just enough evidence for the seeker, but not quite enough for the resister.  When you think about it, it's as we would expect from a long suffering God unwilling that any toe perish, but also unwilling that any should be forced.  Not sure if those are the perfect words, but you get the idea.  

 

Yes I get the idea perfectly, and I love the example that you gave there! The story of faith is a story of persistence in the face of strong opposition, and in order to test that faith the opportunity is repetitively given to turn back if one so desires. In fact, Hebrews 11 which specifically deals with the concept of faith says something that is very interesting:

 

"People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country--a heavenly one." (Heb 11:14-16)

 

People who claim that they were once of the Christian persuasion but then "wisened up" think that their testimony is some kind of counter-evidence against Christianity when what they are doing is quite the opposite. The apostle Paul and the other authors of the NT predicted a powerful delusion, a widespread falling away, and give many strong warnings about being deceived by "fine-sounding" arguments. I think these arguments simply expose those who are "thinking of the country they left" rather than the "promised land".






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users