A question for Christian apologists

[rikuoamero]

I'm wondering - do your beliefs have a fail state? Can they be falsified? Can something happen where, if it happens, you will then say "My beliefs were in error"?

Here's an example of what I mean. The positive belief "Prayers are answered by God" would have as its affirmation the act of prayers actually being answered by what is presumed to be God.
I currently have the negative belief "Prayers are not answered by God". This belief of mine has, as its affirmation, the act (or should I say non-act?) of prayers of mine and others going unanswered. I get the exact same result as if I were talking to plants or a brick wall.
However, my negative belief could be falsified, by prayers being answered, of it being shown that they are being answered by what is presumed to be God. I once had the positive belief "Prayers are answered by God", but decades of presumed silence on God's part when I prayed led me to a different conclusion and eventually to the negative belief I now have. My once positive belief had a fail state, it was falsifiable.

What about you guys? Do your Christian beliefs have fail states?

[The Tanager]

I asked how one could go about proving the resurrection to not have happened. You replied with
It would be hard. You would need something like confessions from the original disciples that are historically reliable.

The word confession is key. It usually is used to imply misdirection is going on e.g. the banker confessed to fraud. You implied to me that you would need writings from the original disciples that say there was no resurrection, or that they made the whole thing up or something along those lines.

If you mean something else, please clarify.

No, that's what I meant. That would be one way to prove, or at the least, make it more plausible that the Resurrection is false. Perhaps there are others.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 16 by Tart]

If you want to prove Christianity is false, you need to abandon your biases and truly investigate Christianity, and come and tell us any good explanation that makes sense of all the evidence... That is, the prophecies fulfilled, and the explanation of the witnesses. Jesus and His Resurrection...

Please clarify if you mean I am to start my investigation believing that prophecies were fulfilled, and that I am to somehow explain how that happened, other than that a god was involved?

You should at least be open to that possibility if you want to investigate independently.

They will say "Paul probably hallucinated the resurrected Christ", while they will insist the other may have just lied about... This is an example of cognitive dissonance. These doubts are not good explanations of the evidence

Please explain how hallucinations are not "good explanations"? You and I both know for a fact that hallucinations do happen, that people do have them. I myself have hallucinated in the past (what about yourself, if I may ask?). Are you somehow able to disprove that Paul hallucinated?
Remember, we have nothing from Paul's own hand regarding his experience of Jesus.

See this is exactly why id suggest suggest you to go investigate the evidence for yourself... Hallucination is not a good explanation, some people say so, and some people want you to believe that... It is what a lot of atheists assert, but i think it is only convincing for people who dont take this subject seriously. Its a good way to convince gullible people...

Like if Paul hallucinated, why would anyone else believe it besides him? If you give credit to Paul having a vision, why not Peters, or Johns, or Daniels visions? Before Paul's visions, dozens of other believed in the risen Christ, how does Paul's hallucination tie in with that? Why would Paul say he knew the Disciples, and others who claim to have met the risen Jesus? Why do we have prophecies from dozens of prophets of a Messiah? Is that some how connected to Paul's hallucination? How can Paul give good reasoning Jesus is the Messiah? Because you are kind of right, Paul doesn't focus on his vision he had when he wrote his Epistles. Instead he focuses on the evidences of Jesus. He focuses on the reasoning Jesus is the Messiah, he says why God sent Him, how this was a fulfillment of God's plan. He gives the reasoning why Jesus resurrection makes sense, and it isnt based on his vision, that was for his conversion alone. I mean how does Paul's hallucination explain that stuff?


If you ask me, claiming Paul hallucinated is not a good base to explain Christianity. You have to say "well Paul hallucinated it... which he genuinely believed" and then conclude, he also didnt believe it, and he lied about much of his testimony as well.

If we believe Paul genuinely believed in a hallucination, but he also lied about it, how would that make sense?

I mean, people like to assert this is an explanation for Christianity, when in fact this is deviating from the evidences, and leads us to no good answers at all..

I think if your going to want to give a coherent explanation for Christianity, your going to have to pretty much abandon this hallucination theory, and say Paul didnt have genuine beliefs... When even then, its clear Paul did have genuine beliefs.


Seems to me, the best explanation is the one given. Paul met the risen Christ like many others, because Christ was the Lamb of God, a plan put in place from the beginning of time and fulfilled in Jesus.

[ttruscott]

What might the difference be between a vision from GOD and a hallucination from GOD??

How can we know?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by Tart]

You should at least be open to that possibility if you want to investigate independently.

Yes, which is why I start at the null hypothesis with regards to the claim "Jesus fulfilled prophecies". I start out by not believing he did fulfill anything (which is not the same thing as believing he didn't).

Like if Paul hallucinated, why would anyone else believe it besides him?

Are you saying humans are rational creatures, a majority of the time?

If you give credit to Paul having a vision, why not Peters, or Johns, or Daniels visions?

Who said I, rikuo, am giving credit to anyone having a (genuine) vision?

Before Paul's visions, dozens of other believed in the risen Christ,

Did they? Please show me evidence of this. Please show me something, some documentation to show that
1) People believed in a risen Christ
2) This was before Paul had his visions

Why would Paul say he knew the Disciples, and others who claim to have met the risen Jesus?

You tell me. Did these disciples corroborate Paul?

Why do we have prophecies from dozens of prophets of a Messiah?

Do these tie in with Jesus? Where's the evidence?

How can Paul give good reasoning Jesus is the Messiah?

Does he do this? See, this is what I mean by me actually discarding biases. Your approach is to assume he does do these things from the get go.

Instead he focuses on the evidences of Jesus.

What evidence? Paul writes very little, practically next to nothing, on an actual Jesus Christ. Paul's Christ is more of an ethereal, spiritual creature.

You have to say "well Paul hallucinated it... which he genuinely believed" and then conclude, he also didnt believe it, and he lied about much of his testimony as well.

Not that he willingly lied. Not that he lied at all. Just that he made it up and didn't regard it as a lie.

I mean, people like to assert this is an explanation for Christianity, when in fact this is deviating from the evidences, and leads us to no good answers at all..

As opposed to the Gospel Jesus supposedly warning against false prophets coming in his name, and then along comes Paul who teaches teachings that diverge from the Gospel Jesus...yeah that makes sense.

your going to have to pretty much abandon this hallucination theory, and say Paul didnt have genuine beliefs... When even then, its clear Paul did have genuine beliefs.

I don't recall saying Paul didn't have genuine beliefs...?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 22 by Tart]

You should at least be open to that possibility if you want to investigate independently.

Yes, which is why I start at the null hypothesis with regards to the claim "Jesus fulfilled prophecies". I start out by not believing he did fulfill anything (which is not the same thing as believing he didn't).

Like if Paul hallucinated, why would anyone else believe it besides him?

Are you saying humans are rational creatures, a majority of the time?

If you give credit to Paul having a vision, why not Peters, or Johns, or Daniels visions?

Who said I, rikuo, am giving credit to anyone having a (genuine) vision?

Before Paul's visions, dozens of other believed in the risen Christ,

Did they? Please show me evidence of this. Please show me something, some documentation to show that
1) People believed in a risen Christ
2) This was before Paul had his visions

By Paul's own emission for one. Claiming hundreds others believed it before him, including the twelve Disciples, and other people he listed by name, (! Corinthians 15:3-8).

The book of Act's collaborates this, the Gospels also confess it.

Why would Paul say he knew the Disciples, and others who claim to have met the risen Jesus?

You tell me. Did these disciples corroborate Paul?

Yes

Why do we have prophecies from dozens of prophets of a Messiah?

Do these tie in with Jesus? Where's the evidence?

How can Paul give good reasoning Jesus is the Messiah?

Does he do this? See, this is what I mean by me actually discarding biases. Your approach is to assume he does do these things from the get go.

That doesnt make sense. I say Paul gives good reasoning, becuase he does... How is that "assuming he does from the get go"?

Instead he focuses on the evidences of Jesus.

What evidence? Paul writes very little, practically next to nothing, on an actual Jesus Christ. Paul's Christ is more of an ethereal, spiritual creature.

Ya, this is just a horrible interpretation of scripture... Paul puts Jesus in life, and on earth. Paul even comments on Jesus lineage. Paul also puts Jesus in a trial with Pontius Pilate. Paul puts Jesus being crucified. Paul says we will experiences death like that of Jesus. Paul mentions, by name, people who witnessed Jesus. Paul claims to have known Peter and John, Disciples of Jesus. Paul also claims to know Jesus's brother, James.

Evidence:

2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David,

In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession

And being found in appearance as a man,
he [Jesus Christ] humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation

On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.

I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.


Anyone who wants you to believe Paul didnt think Jesus was a real person is deceiving you...

It blows my mind that people actually interpret the scripture that way, but its becuase they want to justify the belief Jesus is a myth. Its confirmation biases, that arent even real. It is cognitive biases in interpreting the scripture. I dont think anyone would get that impression if they didnt have biases.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 25 by Tart]

Sorry for the late reply.

By Paul's own emission for one. Claiming hundreds others believed it before him, including the twelve Disciples, and other people he listed by name, (! Corinthians 15:3-8).

Surely I didn't need to spell out that such requires that it not be from Paul's own hand? That it must be independent, and not only that, but that it must be a document dated to before Paul's own writings? You're confirming Paul...by using Paul.

The book of Act's collaborates this, the Gospels also confess it.

Both written many decades after the events in question. Surely I don't need to explain the problem with this?

me

You tell me. Did these disciples corroborate Paul?

Tart

yes

Did anyone corroborate his Damascus experience, from among the disciples/apostles. No, we don't have anything like that. We have nothing regarding the Damascus experience except from the author of Gospel Luke/Acts, nothing from Paul himself.

So please, tell me...who backed up Paul's Damascus experience, from among the disciples?

That doesnt make sense. I say Paul gives good reasoning, becuase he does... How is that "assuming he does from the get go"?

Because you didn't elaborate! You just said that Paul gives good reasoning, as if that's the default adjective to use when describing Paul's words.

Ya, this is just a horrible interpretation of scripture... Paul puts Jesus in life, and on earth. Paul even comments on Jesus lineage.

Wow, so Paul is just automatically believable, trustworthy, when it comes to lineages? Paul says Jesus is a descendant of David, and...that's it? That's all you need?
Have you ever asked yourself the question: How could Paul, Gospel Matthew author or Gospel Luke author know this line of descent? Where and how could they have gotten this information, in an era of spotty record keeping?

Paul also puts Jesus in a trial with Pontius Pilate.

Go on, tell us details about the trial using only Paul.
Same with the crucifixion. Remind the class please what one can learn about Jesus's life, the man, the earthly man, using Paul and Paul alone.

Paul says we will experiences death like that of Jesus.

No-one I've known has been crucified, so I don't know what you or Paul mean by this...

Paul mentions, by name, people who witnessed Jesus.

And do we have corroboration from these people to back up his claim?
E.g. if Paul says "Peter witnessed Jesus" do we have writings from Peter that we can confirm are from Peter that back up the claim?

Paul claims to have known Peter and John, Disciples of Jesus.

And I'm only two people removed from Trump (its actually true by the way. I've met one person, who interviewed another person, who worked with Trump in the White House). Of course, you're not going to get confirmation of this claim because I'm a no-body.

Paul also claims to know Jesus's brother, James.

Is this brother meant in the sense of sibling child of the same parents? How do you know?

Evidence:

And that's all Paul can tell us, apparently, about the earthly, man Jesus. He's supposedly a descendant of David (don't ask me how he's able to justify that). He testified...something...to Pilate, and went to this death humbly on the cross.

Paul knows nothing, practically nothing, about a man Jesus. No sermons. No lessons. No details about his life. He knows not who his parents are.
I justify these claims by pointing out the complete silence from Paul on these matters. If you disagree, feel free to show us where Paul talks about a man Jesus, about his sermons, lessons, about details of his life, or who Jesus's parents were.

[Don McIntosh]

I'm wondering - do your beliefs have a fail state? Can they be falsified? Can something happen where, if it happens, you will then say "My beliefs were in error"?

Here's an example of what I mean. The positive belief "Prayers are answered by God" would have as its affirmation the act of prayers actually being answered by what is presumed to be God.
I currently have the negative belief "Prayers are not answered by God". This belief of mine has, as its affirmation, the act (or should I say non-act?) of prayers of mine and others going unanswered. I get the exact same result as if I were talking to plants or a brick wall.
However, my negative belief could be falsified, by prayers being answered, of it being shown that they are being answered by what is presumed to be God. I once had the positive belief "Prayers are answered by God", but decades of presumed silence on God's part when I prayed led me to a different conclusion and eventually to the negative belief I now have. My once positive belief had a fail state, it was falsifiable.

What about you guys? Do your Christian beliefs have fail states?

That's a great question. Under normal circumstances my faith in God, revealed through Jesus Christ, is a basic belief, like my belief in the validity of logic or my belief in the reliability of my senses to inform me about the external world. It's something that just comes to me. For me, then, Christian faith is not like a tentative hypothesis that can be falsified in the way a properly tested scientific theory might. Nonetheless I can recall a couple of times when my faith did fail.

My first loss of faith occurred some thirty-three years ago, when I was a bright-eyed, relatively naïve young believer at the university, just a few months after my conversion. As I began a new semester with courses in astronomy, sociology, 18th century philosophy, and evolutionary biology, I was simply not prepared for the countless criticisms to be leveled against my faith. (I still remember spending class discussions on topics like "why creationism is false" and "why it's not rational to believe in miracles.") As I was totally unaware of any thoughtful responses available from a Christian perspective, this all blindsided me and I actually became an atheist of sorts for a few months. It took many weeks of my spare time holed up in the university library researching the issues from various angles before I realized that I had been hoodwinked by my professors. Thus began a lifelong interest in apologetics.

I experienced another serious loss of faith many years later, which had comparatively little to do with intellectual or academic questions. This time my disillusionment was something like yours, in that I became frustrated with unanswered prayers (in the face of various personal heartaches and perceived injustices). Like Job in the Old Testament, I felt that God was persecuting me for no justifiable reason and at the same time going out of his way to pour out blessings on criminals and tyrants. I became angry to the point of rage and rashly vowed never to pray, read the Bible, or acknowledge God in any way ever again. Heartfelt as it was at the time, my vow proved empty. Like my previous bout of unbelief, this one only lasted a short time.

The interesting thing for me is that in both the above cases I could have rightly been called an "atheist." In the first case I was an atheist in the sense that I simply lacked any belief that God existed in reality. In the second case I was an atheist in the sense that I denied the existence of God as a matter of principle.

So...yes, my faith can fail. But I don't believe my faith can be falsified.

[William]

I'm wondering - do your beliefs have a fail state? Can they be falsified? Can something happen where, if it happens, you will then say "My beliefs were in error"?

Not all beliefs are based in faith.

Here's an example of what I mean. The positive belief "Prayers are answered by God" would have as its affirmation the act of prayers actually being answered by what is presumed to be God.

The interesting thing about prayer is that most religions use this form of requesting and for individuals who experience some form of answer to their prayers, this affirms their belief in their idea of GOD, faith based or otherwise.
Then there are other forms of positive affirmations as well as casting spells, which appears to be the same thing under another name.

What it leads me to is the idea that something intelligent is responding to the request, and often the response can be magnified/extended to include other things to which the individual was previously ignorant about.

Connecting with a possible alternate (or at least very well hidden) intelligence normally requires some kind of initial faith-driven motivation which - when rewarded with a plausible answer to a request (for the individual at least) allows for belief to be strengthened - and by many accounts - this is more a type of introductory phase which allows for faith to be eventually replaced by knowing. Unless the belief itself is required to always be faith-based, as with the faith in the resurrection of Jesus.

I currently have the negative belief "Prayers are not answered by God". This belief of mine has, as its affirmation, the act (or should I say non-act?) of prayers of mine and others going unanswered. I get the exact same result as if I were talking to plants or a brick wall.

Perhaps that is your expectation, and one which resides within the subconscious aspect of your being?
It is difficult to say, because you have given no examples.
Perhaps you are under the impression all prayers must be answered?
It is my experience that prayers which are answered are specific to help strengthen the individuals persistent belief in their connection with that which is answering them.

I seldom pray anymore, at least not in the manner I used to do, as I have come to understand that these are essentially focused thoughts which are 'sent out' as much as they are 'sent inwards' and there comes a time when one becomes balanced regarding the internal and the external and understands coincidence as serendipity/synchronicity.

Perhaps in examining what you think of as coincidences in your life you might see patterns therein which are similar to how people think of as answered prayers.

However, my negative belief could be falsified, by prayers being answered, of it being shown that they are being answered by what is presumed to be God. I once had the positive belief "Prayers are answered by God", but decades of presumed silence on God's part when I prayed led me to a different conclusion and eventually to the negative belief I now have. My once positive belief had a fail state, it was falsifiable.

Again, it is difficult to know since you give no examples as to what you prayed for, how long you prayed for them, whether you decided that any possible prayer answered might have been 'just coincidence', and even whether you might have missed those connections because of the idea that coincidence could explain away any prayers answered, so you never went beyond that explanation and faith waned, and belief dissipated into a type of disappointment and you invested those energies into something more pliable, focusing upon strictly materialist world views.

[shnarkle]

I'm wondering - do your beliefs have a fail state? Can they be falsified? Can something happen where, if it happens, you will then say "My beliefs were in error"?

Here's an example of what I mean. The positive belief "Prayers are answered by God" would have as its affirmation the act of prayers actually being answered by what is presumed to be God.
I currently have the negative belief "Prayers are not answered by God". This belief of mine has, as its affirmation, the act (or should I say non-act?) of prayers of mine and others going unanswered. I get the exact same result as if I were talking to plants or a brick wall.
However, my negative belief could be falsified, by prayers being answered, of it being shown that they are being answered by what is presumed to be God. I once had the positive belief "Prayers are answered by God", but decades of presumed silence on God's part when I prayed led me to a different conclusion and eventually to the negative belief I now have. My once positive belief had a fail state, it was falsifiable.

What about you guys? Do your Christian beliefs have fail states?

I don't necessarily rely upon beliefs. Logic seems to work better. For example, to ask one if God can be falsified is idiotic due to the fact that for God to exist in the created world, God would have to exist objectively, and by definition, this is idolatry. The authors of the bible point out that there is nothing in the created world that is like God(e.g. "there is none beside me"). Using one's imagination is pointless, hence the commandment against it.

Most choose to ignore that simple command and instead believe that they can pray to their imagined god or gods which is what you indicated in your original post. That was your first error.

The next error is in supposing that a god that transcends all imagination can be falsified. Here again, transcendence can't be falsified primarily due to the fact that if transcendence didn't transcend existence, it wouldn't be transcendent in the first place.

You're essentially asking if there is such a thing as nothing. It's a contradiction. There is only the idea of nothing which corresponds to something. Nothing can't exist.

If we take this idea further, we should note that you have an identity which you undoubtedly cherish, but which isn't actually you at all. It isn't even yours as ideas can't actually be owned. Sure, one can secure a patent, but patents require vast sums of money to protect. Good luck protecting a great idea against those who have a bottomless pit of money at their disposal.

We all have avatars or "handles" here on this site, but they are no more real than the one's we were given at our birth. They are simply used to distinguish us from other identities. They aren't real. They don't actually exist as anything other than ideas.

Therefore neither one of us exists as anything other than an idea that is associated with a body. You can call it "yours", but that doesn't make it so. More importantly, it doesn't establish who you are, and frankly I don't see anyone who has a clue how to prove they exist. I see no point in bothering to prove the existence of God for the same reason.

The fact is that things exist. God is not a thing, and neither am I.


What appears on your computer screen is nothing less than the most horrific "bot" from the pit of hell.

[shnarkle]

I'm wondering - do your beliefs have a fail state? Can they be falsified? Can something happen where, if it happens, you will then say "My beliefs were in error"?

Here's an example of what I mean. The positive belief "Prayers are answered by God" would have as its affirmation the act of prayers actually being answered by what is presumed to be God.
I currently have the negative belief "Prayers are not answered by God". This belief of mine has, as its affirmation, the act (or should I say non-act?) of prayers of mine and others going unanswered. I get the exact same result as if I were talking to plants or a brick wall.
However, my negative belief could be falsified, by prayers being answered, of it being shown that they are being answered by what is presumed to be God. I once had the positive belief "Prayers are answered by God", but decades of presumed silence on God's part when I prayed led me to a different conclusion and eventually to the negative belief I now have. My once positive belief had a fail state, it was falsifiable.

What about you guys? Do your Christian beliefs have fail states?

I don't necessarily rely upon beliefs. Logic seems to work better. For example, to ask one if God can be falsified is idiotic due to the fact that for God to exist in the created world, God would have to exist objectively, and by definition, this is idolatry. The authors of the bible point out that there is nothing in the created world that is like God(e.g. "there is none beside me"). Using one's imagination is pointless, hence the commandment against it.

Most choose to ignore that simple command and instead believe that they can pray to their imagined god or gods which is what you indicated in your original post. That was your first error.

The next error is in supposing that a god that transcends all imagination can be falsified. Here again, transcendence can't be falsified primarily due to the fact that if transcendence didn't transcend existence, it wouldn't be transcendent in the first place.

You're essentially asking if there is such a thing as nothing. It's a contradiction. There is only the idea of nothing which corresponds to something. Nothing can't exist.

If we take this idea further, we should note that you have an identity which you undoubtedly cherish, but which isn't actually you at all. It isn't even yours as ideas can't actually be owned. Sure, one can secure a patent, but patents require vast sums of money to protect. Good luck protecting a great idea against those who have a bottomless pit of money at their disposal.

We all have avatars or "handles" here on this site, but they are no more real than the one's we were given at our birth. They are simply used to distinguish us from other identities. They aren't real. They don't actually exist as anything other than ideas.

Therefore neither one of us exists as anything other than an idea that is associated with a body. You can call it "yours", but that doesn't make it so. More importantly, it doesn't establish who you are, and frankly I don't see anyone who has a clue how to prove they exist. I see no point in bothering to prove the existence of God for the same reason.

The fact is that things exist. God is not a thing, and neither am I.


What appears on your computer screen is nothing less than the most horrific "bot" from the pit of hell.