Why Christianity is Likely Ficticious

[Rational Atheist]

When evaluating whether the claims of Christianity are true or fictional, it's important to take a step back and think about what is typically seen with regard to true beliefs and false beliefs. And, one of the most important characteristics of true beliefs is the fact that they are often independently discovered by multiple people. For instance, pulmonary circulation was discovered/theorized independently in Egypt by Ibn al Nafis and later in Europe by Michael Servetus and later still William Harvey. Calculus was independently discovered by both Isacc Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, evolution was discovered independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. There are countless other examples of "multiple discoveries" of facts that can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... iscoveries

The point is that rational people, who objectively search for truth, will often independently discover facts about the universe. So if Christianity and the existence of the Christian god is a fact about the universe (and we could apply this argument to any other religion/god as well), then we would expect that sincere theologians around the world dedicated to the search for God would independently discover Jesus Christ/Yahweh/Holy Spirit, and thus become Christians. As a result, we would not expect it to take 1500 years for Christianity to reach North America, for instance. If Christianity is true, then it is an objective fact and should thus be discoverable by anyone searching hard enough for the truth about the universe. So, why don't we see Christianity emerge in North or South America, Africa, or China, prior to the arrival of Christians into these parts of the world? One would expect that if Christianity were an objectively true fact, it would be independently discovered in multiple regions of the world. But, it wasn't. Quite the opposite. Prior to the invention of technologies that allowed world travel and communication, every culture had its own version of God, and its own religion. While some of these gods and religions had slight similarities, none of the matched exactly. This is strong evidence that all of these gods and religions are manmade constructs that only exist in the imaginations of humans.

So, my question for Christians is, if your religion is a fact, why was it never independently discovered by anyone? Bear in mind that not only is Christianity supposed to be an objective fact, the god is supposed to want people to know and worship him, meaning that it should be even MORE LIKELY for Christianity to be independently discovered if it is a fact than scientific and mathematical facts are to be independently discovered.

[We_Are_VENOM]

What's really hilarious is that your example is EXACTLY like Christianity.

I'm sure it was. After all, that was the point.

Someone made something, packaged it, and started spreading it to whoever would buy it.

Ohh, so the origins of Christianity was based upon a lie? Any evidence for this?

You have completely missed the entire point. Christianity is based on a particular god concept. The Jewish one to be precise. The Christian Jesus was one of these Jews and in the stories also based everything on this god.

The Christian Jesus is God.

The whole point of the original argument is that this god was not independently discovered. One would expect that if this god was truly interacting with all its creation, not just one small tribe in one part of the world, other people would have come to very similar conclusions about this god that seems to be in charge.

Why would one expect this? And you saying this only demonstrates that I did not miss the point, and my question remains; If God is focusing on Israel/Israelites in a specified part of the word (ancient Palestine), then how do you expect people from far away lands Asia or North America to know about Jehovah, and later Jesus (in the first century)?

This is similar to you having a trivia on a remote tribe in some African village, a tribe that you've never even heard about...yet you are questioned on their customs and practices.

Pretty high expectations, don't you think.

And as far as the deeper issue that appears to be raised here, which pertains to the fairness of God showing himself to everyone except to a select nation...obviously, those who don't "know" God won't be held accountable for what they don't know...however, when Jesus commissioned the disciples to go make disciples of all nations, I am confident that we are about 90% there..which means that 90% of the people on this Earth knows about Christianity...which only leaves..

1. The conversion of EVERYONE who knows (which won't happen but the effort of getting the message out is prevalent).

2. The delivering of the message to those who DON'T know...which is only about 10%.

That, followed by the fact that..

"God was not independently discovered by anyone".

contradicts..

The burning bush...Ex 3:1-6.

God was independently discovered by Moses. That, and countless other examples in the Bible. So, the fact that the premise just isn't true, followed by the fact that even if it was true, it still doesn't have the implications that you are is being touted on here.

While it's true that Jesus' interactions with this god would not be known until the stories spread, the god itself who spawned all this was supposedly around from the beginning. In fact, if other people had independently discovered the same god, then the story of Jesus would likely have instantly made sense to them and would have further solidified the entire thing.

Everything worked out according to God's will. If there was a better way to do things, then it would have been done that way.

Yet what we have today is many (thousands) of Christian denominations. That is a massive red flag, or certainly should be. Not only do we NOT have people independently discovering the same god concept, we have adherents to one of them disagreeing on just about every aspect of the one they supposedly share.

If you can show me a world at which free-thinking people don't disagree on things, and I will show you a 3-sided circle.

[Dimmesdale]

If you can show me a world at which free-thinking people don't disagree on things, and I will show you a 3-sided circle.

In the beginning with the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Those persons were free in their thoughts -- yet they had no disagreements, no? And there was no other world(s). Wasn't that a 3-sided circle if there ever was one?

But maybe they each have a different favorite primary color.

Not a Christian but... thought that might interest you.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #59]

Soo, "seeing is believing" is only a rule of thumb if it pertains to things that are detrimental to your eternal soul? Hmm.

Not sure that's the standard rule for humanity, but I'd suspect for something as important as the immortal soul (as many claim) there would be something much more substantial God would provide to eliminate all but the most astute doubt.

I do not follow.

In reference to God providing proof to everyone but only one person accepts it. I would suspect, to God, doing that would be worth it. It's not as if providing proof is outside God's possibility. Will maybe, but not possibility IMO.

Nature had a beginning. And anything which begins to exist, has a cause.

Which doesn't negate that nature is nature, with the need to attribute that beginning to God spiritual and social pareidolia.

[We_Are_VENOM]

In the beginning with the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Those persons were free in their thoughts -- yet they had no disagreements, no? And there was no other world(s). Wasn't that a 3-sided circle if there ever was one?

But maybe they each have a different favorite primary color.

Not a Christian but... thought that might interest you.

LOL. Nice. Obviously, God (persons of the Trinity) was excluded from my challenge. Good stuff though.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not sure that's the standard rule for humanity, but I'd suspect for something as important as the immortal soul (as many claim) there would be something much more substantial God would provide to eliminate all but the most astute doubt.

Well, if there was a better way, it would have been done that way...instead of the way that it was done.

In reference to God providing proof to everyone but only one person accepts it. I would suspect, to God, doing that would be worth it. It's not as if providing proof is outside God's possibility. Will maybe, but not possibility IMO.

The proof is the universe (Rom 1:20).

Which doesn't negate that nature is nature, with the need to attribute that beginning to God spiritual and social pareidolia.

??

[Tcg]

The proof is the universe (Rom 1:20).

And yet in another thread you present the amusing Modal Ontological Argument as evidence of God. Which is it?


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

The proof is the universe (Rom 1:20).

And yet in another thread you present the amusing Modal Ontological Argument as evidence of God. Which is it?


Tcg

Both. And to your chagrin, there are many more too.

[Tcg]

The proof is the universe (Rom 1:20).

And yet in another thread you present the amusing Modal Ontological Argument as evidence of God. Which is it?


Tcg

Both. And to your chagrin, there are many more too.

If your first claim were true, you'd need no other. You of course have presented another which shows you first false.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

The proof is the universe (Rom 1:20).

And yet in another thread you present the amusing Modal Ontological Argument as evidence of God. Which is it?


Tcg

Both. And to your chagrin, there are many more too.

If your first claim were true, you'd need no other. You of course have presented another which shows you first false.


Tcg

The evidence/proof is meant to convince "reasonable" people.

Not everyone is reasonable, so not everyone is convinced.

[nobspeople]

Not sure that's the standard rule for humanity, but I'd suspect for something as important as the immortal soul (as many claim) there would be something much more substantial God would provide to eliminate all but the most astute doubt.

1) Well, if there was a better way, it would have been done that way...instead of the way that it was done.

In reference to God providing proof to everyone but only one person accepts it. I would suspect, to God, doing that would be worth it. It's not as if providing proof is outside God's possibility. Will maybe, but not possibility IMO.

2) The proof is the universe (Rom 1:20).

Which doesn't negate that nature is nature, with the need to attribute that beginning to God spiritual and social pareidolia.

3) ??

1 & 2) Please prove these to be true and accurate, beyond any doubt.
3) Looking to see God in nature and seeing him because you want to see him: is the tendency for incorrect perception of a stimulus as an object, pattern or meaning known to the observer. Common examples are perceived images of animals, faces, or objects in cloud formations, or lunar pareidolia like a face in smoke of a fire, Jesus in a grilled cheese, etc.
Your universe example is a form of an example of pareidolia = wanting to see god so bad you see him where you wish.