What is your strongest reason for believing in Christianity?

[bluegreenearth]

What is the single strongest reason that supports your belief in Christianity?

How could we determine if that reason is reliable or unreliable?

Note: Discovering you have an unreliable reason would NOT mean your belief is false; only that you require a more reliable reason to justify a high degree of confidence in the validity of the belief.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 42 by bluegreenearth]

Why do you ask? Have I posted anything that would give rise to that question?



JW

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 51 by JehovahsWitness]

JehovahsWitness asked, "Why do you ask? Have I posted anything that would give rise to that question?"

The question was intended for a specific person who goes by the username "benchwarmer." Sorry for the confusion.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 51 by JehovahsWitness]

JehovahsWitness asked, "Why do you ask? Have I posted anything that would give rise to that question?"

The question was intended for a specific person who goes by the username "benchwarmer." Sorry for the confusion.

[Replying to post 40 by JehovahsWitness]

I promise the following question is not meant to be condescending or rhetorical, but it will help me gauge how much background knowledge is required before we continue:

Are you familiar with the burden of proof fallacy and some of the other more common logical fallacies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Then you might like to avoid clicking on "reply" as the post will have the name of the poster at its heading. (In any case, please Note anyone can address any post, so if I commented on something without my name on, do feel free to ignore).


Anything else?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 51 by JehovahsWitness]

JehovahsWitness asked, "Why do you ask? Have I posted anything that would give rise to that question?"

The question was intended for a specific person who goes by the username "benchwarmer." Sorry for the confusion.

[Replying to post 40 by JehovahsWitness]

I promise the following question is not meant to be condescending or rhetorical, but it will help me gauge how much background knowledge is required before we continue:

Are you familiar with the burden of proof fallacy and some of the other more common logical fallacies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Then you might like to avoid clicking on "reply" as the post will have the name of the poster at its heading. (In any case, please Note anyone can address any post, so if I commented on something without my name on, do feel free to ignore).


Anything else?

I see the confusion was on my part. I didn't realize you were responding to the question I asked you earlier. It seemed to me as if you were responding to the question I had for "benchwarmer." I understand now. Thanks.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 54 by bluegreenearth]

Not a problem, it does take time for newbies to learn the ropes. Carry on.


JW




RELATED POSTS

What good reasons are there to be a Christian?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 324#974324

What are some fundamental questions that need to be answered to build a solid faith?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 325#974325

How can one find religious truth?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 583#795583

Do extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 870#330870

FURTHER READING

Can we know the truth about God?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... t_index]=7

"What does the bible really teach" (free online book available below)
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 51 by JehovahsWitness]

The response you gave earlier included a few logical fallacies. However, before engaging in a discussion on where the fallacies exist, I wanted to know if you were familiar with some of the more common logical fallacies such as the burden of proof (onus probandi) fallacy.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 41 by benchwarmer]

I find RR's response typical of the type of response given when there is no single solid reason.

I tell you what. You show me a person on either side of the equation who is under the impression that there is a "single solid reason" to believe, or dismiss the claims, and I can more than likely show you a, simple minded person, because it does not work like that my friend.

This debate has been going on for over 2000 years now, and there have been books, on top on books written on both sides of the equations, and continues to be so, and there have been debates, after debates, concerning this very thing, and continues to be so, and for one to understand all of this, and come to the conclusion that one should have a single reason, certainly seems to demonstrate one who is looking for simple answers.

It seems throwing together a bunch of flimsy reasons amounts to an overall solid reason.

Oh really? Well then, I brought up a few of the letters we have, so why don't you explain to us how, and why these would be "flimsy reasons" by explaining exactly why, and how we have these letters to begin with?

Because you see, the letters actually give us a reason, so it is your turn now to explain to us, how, and why we have these letters, and why there would be reasons to doubt them?

At least that's the way it reads to me.

Well, let's see how it reads now, after you give us your explanations?

Then comes the complaining that WE must show the reasons are not solid rather than the other way around.

Okay, let's go through this slowly. I have pointed to the letters we have which would be a fact. I have gone on to give reasons to believe the content of these letters very well may be true. You have failed to address any of these points.

I am not insisting that you believe them, and I am not insisting that there would be no reason to doubt them. However, if you are insisting that there would be no good reason to believe them, then I am not shifting the burden to you, rather you are accepting the burden, yourself.

I found the OP question clear and concise. Basically, give us your top reason and explain why/how you came to the conclusion you did.

Exactly! And I am attempting to explain, that if one has actually thought through all these things, then they could not possibly, "explain why/how they came to the conclusion" in one post, no matter what side of the equation they are on.

Instead, what we get are a whole bunch of claims that all have about the same method for reliability. Just believe because other claims were made. Seems rather circular.

This seems to sort of demonstrates one who does not know a whole lot about what is contained in the Bible. These letters we have are not simply claims, but are also direct evidence of how these men went on to live their life well into their old age.

These letters are also direct evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have traveled around with Paul on his missionary journeys for years, which clearly demonstrates, this author would have been alive at the time of Christ, would have known all the Apostles, spent much time with them, and known the claims they were making first hand. This demonstrates, the claims of the resurrection could not possibly have been something the Apostles never claimed, and these tales came along much later after the Apostles were gone, as some of the critics suggest.

Again, for one to simply claim, "all we have is claims" sort of demonstrates pretty clearly one who is not thinking very much, because there are a lot of things we can know, and a lot of arguments which are made by the critics, that can be refuted by looking at these letters which contain way more than simply, claims.

Since I have no way to independently verify these claims, I cannot honestly believe the claims.

Again, I am not asking you to believe these claims, and I am not insisting that you would have no reason to doubt. You may in fact have your reasons. So then, as long as you are not insisting that I have no reasons to believe the claims, then we have no debate.

This does not mean the claims are false (as some like to strawman my position), but simply that I find no reasonable reason to believe the claims.

Again, if you are simply saying you, yourself, personally, "find no reasonable reason to believe the claims" then we have no debate. However, acknowledging the claims may in fact be true, would certainly seem to indicate there must be reasons to believe them.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I have addressed this in the past with others. First, and far most, this is not something you came up with on your own, but is rather something you have heard, and it sounds good to your ears, but it is simply false. In other words, it is a catchy phrase which sounds good, but makes no sense whatsoever.

If I tell you my name is Jack, you will more than likely simply accept my name as being Jack, because it really does not matter, and it is not an extraordinary claim. If I tell you there was a resurrection, unlike the above example, you would more than likely not simply take my word for it, but you would rather require more evidence, than simply my word.

However, more evidence to support a claim, would not mean the evidence would have to be extraordinary. What would extraordinary evidence be anyway. What would constitute evidence being extraordinary? What you are really saying is, "you require proof for extraordinary claims, while you do not require proof for other claims".

If there were a reliable way to verify ANY of the miraculous claims, this would be pasted into every response from every Christian. i.e. just do X and see for yourself! Funny how "do X" always boils down to "have faith".

You see, right here you are not asking for any sort of evidence. Rather, you are asking for "verification", which is proof. Listen, that is fine if you require proof to believe these things. However, simply because you want "verification" would not mean there would not be facts, and evidence to support a resurrection, because there is.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 48 by bluegreenearth]

My friend, what you seem to be asking here would be exactly what I did in order to come to the convictions I now hold, and this took a number of years. In other words, this is not like a shopping list where I check off the things I buy. Rather, it was a painstaking process, that required years of thinking through, and you seem to be under the impression that this all can be handled in a single post?

GOOD GRIEF! If it were as simple as you seem to make it out to be, then I highly doubt we would continue to have the debate.

However, to make it as simple as you seem to want it to be. I believe the claims of the Resurrection of Jesus, because of the facts, and evidence we have which support the Resurrection of Jesus.

If we did not have these facts, and evidence to support the Resurrection of Jesus, then I would have no reasons to believe in this Resurrection?

Does that help?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 41 by benchwarmer]

I find RR's response typical of the type of response given when there is no single solid reason.

I tell you what. You show me a person on either side of the equation who is under the impression that there is a "single solid reason" to believe, or dismiss the claims, and I can more than likely show you a, simple minded person, because it does not work like that my friend.

I think there is a confusion of terms here. I am not claiming there is one and only one solid reason for anything. I'm talking about A solid reason. Do you have A solid reason. i.e. what is your MOST solid reason. I'm not sure how that has escaped your notice given the title of this thread or the part of my response which you conveniently did not respond to when I gave one example for disbelief.

In other words, I gave a single (not many) reason which I find solid. Are there others? Sure. I gave what I thought was my most solid reason.

Continually insinuating others are 'simple minded' or not thinking well is not garnering you any points. It does, however, make me care less and less about having a dialog with you. Let's stick to the topic please.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 58 by Realworldjack]

I thought my previous comment was careful to explain where I understood the issue was more complex in the way you've described it. Apparently, I failed to adequately convey that point. The purpose for the guidance I provided was not to oversimplify the debate but to better refine a starting point for the discussion. I will consider your latest response and provide you my comments shortly. Thank you for your continued patience.