PDA

View Full Version : Concerning "the evidence that proves that the Christian God exists"



Lukecash12
June 15th, 2011, 11:57 AM
Just asking the other members of ODN whether or not they felt that Saigon and I engaged in quality debate, whoever may have come out on top, and whether or not they would be interested if him and I started a debate in the FD forum.

MindTrap028
June 15th, 2011, 10:07 PM
I didn't keep up with that thread, but after reading just the conclusions I'd say you both had a good exchange.

Prime Zombie
June 16th, 2011, 02:59 AM
Luke, I just removed you from my Ignore list, and a lot of that has to do with the debate in question. I would note that we ought not discuss martial arts, and that I still believe you to be stretching the truth to one extent or another based on our last discussion.

Anyhow, I thought the two of you raised interesting points and kept cool heads, and for those reasons alone each of you has gained my respect. In the end, however, the big hurdle that I feel you are not able to overcome is establishing that Jesus, if he existed, if it is both reasonable and merits belief as far as the supernatural claims forwarded by the bible are concerned. Using the bible to support itself of course is circular reasoning. If we have no other source to support the claim (which is a fundimental, if not the most important claim of Christianity) that Jesus died for 3 days and then came back to life, why should we believe it?

You don't believe that Krishna, if he existed, was Vishnu's avatar because of the so-called events that are described in the vedas, do you? As a Christian, you're not really allowed to believe in other gods, so I hope it is safe to assume that you don't. How is that any different from me not believing your claim that Jesus did those miracles and then was risen?

I present a very similar challenge to cstam in the thread in question, we'll see how he deals with it there.

I for one would like to see you and Saigon do a FD, btw.

Lukecash12
June 16th, 2011, 10:17 AM
Luke, I just removed you from my Ignore list, and a lot of that has to do with the debate in question. I would note that we ought not discuss martial arts, and that I still believe you to be stretching the truth to one extent or another based on our last discussion.

I can admit that I was probably told contrary claims to yours by instructors who wanted their forms to be respected just as much as mma. So, my sources have definitely been biased, and I can recognize that.


Anyhow, I thought the two of you raised interesting points and kept cool heads, and for those reasons alone each of you has gained my respect. In the end, however, the big hurdle that I feel you are not able to overcome is establishing that Jesus, if he existed, if it is both reasonable and merits belief as far as the supernatural claims forwarded by the bible are concerned. Using the bible to support itself of course is circular reasoning. If we have no other source to support the claim (which is a fundimental, if not the most important claim of Christianity) that Jesus died for 3 days and then came back to life, why should we believe it?

You're right, in that they are the only sources contemporary to the event. So, my goal was to go about establishing whether they were trustworthy concerning the event of the resurrection, and I pointed out that five independent, first generation, sources were agreeing that Jesus died (which is a very original claim considering their background) and rose from the dead.


You don't believe that Krishna, if he existed, was Vishnu's avatar because of the so-called events that are described in the vedas, do you? As a Christian, you're not really allowed to believe in other gods, so I hope it is safe to assume that you don't. How is that any different from me not believing your claim that Jesus did those miracles and then was risen?

It is different because we don't have manuscripts that are contemporary with said events in Hinduism, and there is quite a bit of what a historian would call legendary details. Whereas the five NT gospels (if you include the formula Paul received) are much more simplistic and in agreement with historical methodology.


I for one would like to see you and Saigon do a FD, btw.

He's agreed to one, and I'd like to see what it is that people might want to see us debate about.