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.

[JehovahsWitness]

And if God exists, he is perfectly capable of imparting knowledge of himself onto humans who have never heard of him. So the question is, why doesn't he?

Well if God is omnipotent the only logical answer to that question would be because He doesn't want to.

And, how can that be distinguished from 'not existing in the first place'?

Personal revelation serves to identify God it is not necessary to confirm his existence since the evidence of that is all round us.




RELATED POST

Why believe in ANY gods at all?
viewtopic.php?p=998032#p998032

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

TRUTH , GOD and ... EVOLUTION

[Goat]

And if God exists, he is perfectly capable of imparting knowledge of himself onto humans who have never heard of him. So the question is, why doesn't he?

Well if God is omnipotent the only logical answer to that question would be because He doesn't want to.

And, how can that be distinguished from 'not existing in the first place'?

Personal revelation serves to identify God it is not necessary to confirm his existence since the evidence of that is all round us.




RELATED POST

Why believe in ANY gods at all?
viewtopic.php?p=998032#p998032

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

TRUTH , GOD and ... EVOLUTION

There is the claim for personal revelation. How can that be shown to be true? It might be personally convincing, and is totally emotionally based, but that is just a conviction you are right. Can you SHOW you are right?

[JehovahsWitness]

There is the claim for personal revelation. How can that be shown to be true? It might be personally convincing, ... Can you SHOW you are right?

I didn't claim to be subject of personal revelation but even if I had had a personal revelation why would that need to be proven to anyone else? The whole point would be that it would have been personal. If someone claims to be a PROPHET, conveying a message from God for other, then it will come true. If it doesn't then logically it was not from God.

My point was, that there is no need for personal revelation to establish if there is a Creator but there is to learn more about that one than mere existence.


JW

[Goat]

There is the claim for personal revelation. How can that be shown to be true? It might be personally convincing, ... Can you SHOW you are right?

I didn't claim to be subject of personal revelation but even if I had had a personal revelation why would that need to be proven to anyone else? The whole point would be that it would have been personal. If someone claims to be a PROPHET, conveying a message from God for other, then it will come true. If it doesn't then logically it was not from God.

My point was, that there is no need for personal revelation to establish if there is a Creator but there is to learn more about that one than mere existence.


JW

And, there is no way to show a 'personal revelation' is anything more than confirmation bias.

[brunumb]

And, there is no way to show a 'personal revelation' is anything more than confirmation bias.

And/Or a case of self-delusion inspired by deeply held religious beliefs.

[Goat]

There is the claim for personal revelation. How can that be shown to be true? It might be personally convincing, ... Can you SHOW you are right?

I didn't claim to be subject of personal revelation but even if I had had a personal revelation why would that need to be proven to anyone else? The whole point would be that it would have been personal. If someone claims to be a PROPHET, conveying a message from God for other, then it will come true. If it doesn't then logically it was not from God.

My point was, that there is no need for personal revelation to establish if there is a Creator but there is to learn more about that one than mere existence.


JW

You have not established there is a 'Creator' with or without your personal revelation.\

[JehovahsWitness]

And, there is no way to show a 'personal revelation' is anything more than confirmation bias.

Logically personal revelation by an Almighty God could be distinguished from wishful thinking if he wanted that to be the case. Or is your point that there is something an omnipotent God could not do?

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

You have not established there is a 'Creator' with or without your personal revelation.\

YOU have not established there isn't a 'Creator' (with or without your personal revelation). So? So what?! Do we need to, to participate in a discussion on the subject? If so perhaps you should be addressing the writer of the original post and not me.

I made no claim one way or the other.

[Goat]

And, there is no way to show a 'personal revelation' is anything more than confirmation bias.

Logically personal revelation by an Almighty God could be distinguished from wishful thinking if he wanted that to be the case. Or is your point that there is something an omnipotent God could not do?

JW

But, as far as I can see, he hasn't. So, since he hasn't, currently he can not be distinguished from wishful thinking. If then and maybes aren't convincing

[Goat]

You have not established there is a 'Creator' with or without your personal revelation.\

YOU have not established there isn't a 'Creator' (with or without your personal revelation). So? So what?! Do we need to, to participate in a discussion on the subject? If so perhaps you should be addressing the writer of the original post and not me.

I made no claim one way or the other.

However, you made the positive claim. Therefore it is up to you to provide evidence that your positive claims is true. What you are trying to do is the logical fallacy known as 'shifting the burden of proof'.