WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

[POI]

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #90]

Well, the burden of proof lies with the side who makes/asserts a positive claim.

This is an old argument, which did not originate with you. If you are satisfied with making arguments which have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of the matter that is up to you. Because you see, this is simply a tactic in order to shed oneself of any sort of burden. If I have made any sort of positive claims which cannot be demonstrated, please point these out to me, and we can discuss them. Otherwise, I see no point in you bringing this into the conversation, other than it is a "sound bite" which makes one feel better? A Christian who explains what they believe, based upon the facts, and evidence involved, does not own any sort of burden.

Heck, even Richard Dawkins has made statements that his confidence level, that a god(s) does/do not exist, is something around 6.? out of 7. Hence, it is not up to even Richard Dawkins to prove why 'god does not exist'. He simply has great doubt.

Therefore, what we end up with, is Dawkins, simply sharing with us what it is he believes, based upon the facts, and evidence, without making any sort of truth claims. So then, what is the difference when a Christian simply shares what it is they believe concerning the facts, and evidence, without making any sort of truth claims?

Thus, I ask you now... Are you asserting that God exists?

I am claiming to be convinced with great certainty, based upon the facts, and evidence we have. You know, kinda like Dawkins?

And if you are less than 100% certain, why would that be?

This is really funny! My friend, we all have our doubts from time to time concerning any number of things. If one were to claim they never had any sort of doubt concerning what they believe to be true, then I would not really put a whole lot of trust into what this person had to say. However, any sort of doubt I may have would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. I can tell you this, being here on this site continues to resolve any sort of doubt.

Honestly, it was a slow and organic process that happened slowly and gradually. I still have doubts, in both directions (i.e.) believer v. doubt.

We all have doubts as stated above. It is part of being human. In other words, if one claims to never have any sort of doubt, I can only imagine they are being less than honest. Or, they are not human.

But I must admit, early indoctrination is what mainly propels me to continue entertaining theism the most.

Get over it! I have rejected a tremendous amount of what I was taught as a child concerning Christianity.

The point that I should have made better, in the OP, is that you likely will never see a heated 'god debate', where one side raises their hands and states; "You know what, you are right, I'm with you now."

After the dust settles, I bet the debaters of both sides reflect upon the points made by their opponent, and likely augment/adjust their existing arguments, (or) maybe even no longer choose to use a particular argument any longer. And maybe, in some rare cases, they will start to explore what their opponent said more, and may eventually ultimately fall away from their current belief; albeit, for various reasons and over much time???

My question is, would you say that it was logic, and reason which lead you to reject what you once believed?

Is it a coincidence that you happen to have been raised into the right belief?

As stated above, I have rejected a tremendous amount of what I was taught as a child concerning Christianity.

The goal of this thread is to first find out why one believes. If it's because of indoctrination, like it was for me, then one can then explore if these indoctrinated folks ever did or do any actual research of the arguments which look to present conflict towards the indoctrinated position(s), WITHOUT BIAS -- (if humanly possible)?

Once I did so, I really had no choice but to pretty much reject my prior indoctrinated teachings. Though, like I said prior, I still waiver from time to time.

Have you ever heard the saying, "throwing the baby out with the bath water"? I am not claiming this is what you have done. I am simply pointing out the fact that I did in fact examine very closely what I was taught as a child concerning Christianity. While I have rejected much of what I was taught, so much so I could no longer worship with mom, dad, family, and lifelong friends, I also became convinced through the process Christianity was indeed true. There are those who tend to simply come to the conclusion that if anything they were taught would be false, then we throw the whole thing out.

Allow me to give you an example. If you grew up believing there were those who somehow communicated with God in some sort of mysterious way, and later come to believe this would not be true, there may be some who may jump to the conclusion the whole thing must be false, while there may be others who may come to the conclusion, while there may be a whole lot of what I was taught that would be in error, this would not necessitate the whole. AGAIN! I am not saying this is what you have done. Rather, I am simply pointing out the fact that we both seem to have examined what it is we were taught, with one of us throwing the whole thing out, while the other has not.

The question is, do you make truth claims?

Sure I do. Allow me to demonstrate. We have two letters addressed to someone by the name of Theophilus, and in the first letter to this Theophilus, the author tells Theophilus, that Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, and rose again. That my friend, is a "truth claim", which can be demonstrated to be true.

Is there a way to make ANY truth claim?

I just did, and can demonstrate that it is true.

Or, is it just my opinion v. yours?

You can only have an opinion concerning things which have not been demonstrated to be true. You know like, you cannot say, "in my opinion we do not have two letters addressed to, Theophilus which communicate to Theophilus Jesus was raised from the dead". You cannot hold an opinion concerning this, because it is a fact that we do indeed have these letters. You can however, share your opinion as to how, and why you believe we have these letters.

How might one know if the "resurrection claim" is true?

I do not "know", how one can claim to "know". However, I do indeed "know" how one can be convinced. You know, sort of like, Dawkins.

Who exactly is 'ordained', and how do you know?

I never said a word about anyone being "ordained". Rather, what I am saying is, God has ordained certain means of communication, such as scripture, communion, baptism, and prayer. There are those who claim to have created other means, and I am simply saying, I don't buy it!

If you both read from the same book of 'truths', then why do you two disagree here?

OH MY! You know what? I have never thought about that. Maybe, the Christian claims are indeed false? You see? You continue to bring up things, which would have nothing to do with the truth of the matter in the least. And you wonder why I can come to the conclusion; you really have no reason to doubt the Christian claims? GOOD GRIEF!

If truth is a thing, is it true I just referenced a video which points out that WLC admits, in two places, that "arguments and evidence" are not WHY he ultimately believes?

And this demonstrates exactly what in your mind?

It depends. Why do you believe? I have found, that when pressed, many Christians resort this this fundamental reason for their belief in Christ. Maybe you do not fall within this category?

I do not fall into that category. Maybe, you fell into this category when you were a Christian, along with basing your belief upon what other Christians said, and you simply transpose the way in which you sustained your belief, upon others? I can assure you, it would not be the last thing I would refer to as being a reason I believe, because I would never refer to it! Can you imagine why? Because, it would have nothing to do with it. That's right! Craig, and I read the same "book of truth" (whatever that means?) and we do not agree. Guess that demonstrates Christianity to be false?

My objective is to explore WHY one believes and if these reason(s) are 'sound'?

Right! More than likely there are those, who did not put a whole lot of thought into it when they "once believed", and therefore they seem to be under the impression that all Christians would be able to give them some sort of simple reason, (you know like a main reason) they believe? Meanwhile, here in the "real world" there are those of us who understand it is not that simple at all. In other words, if I were to ask one to give me the "main reason" they did not believe, and they were able to give me such a reason, I suppose, I could show you one with a simple mind? Do you agree? Or, are you under the impression that it is indeed as simple as some sort of "main reason" one would believe, or not believe? There is a thing I like to refer to as, "easy in, easy out". You know, it did not take a whole lot of thinking in order to believe, and therefore it did not take a whole lot of thinking in order for "Humpty Dumpty" to come crashing down.

I myself have a lack in belief. Hence, there is really nothing to explore in regards to 'Jesus'; as explained at the top - above.

Great! I have no problem with you expressing your "lack of belief". The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist, I have no reasons to believe as I do. Unless of course, they can demonstrate this to be the case.

Would you agree 'extraordinary claimed need extraordinary evidence'?

No, I would not. Again, this is not something you came up with on your own, but is rather something you have heard, which sounds good to your ears, but really has no substance! Why would an "extraordinary claim" need any more evidence than an ordinary claim? I mean if an extraordinary claim can be demonstrated to be true by ordinary evidence, do we reject the claim, since the evidence was not extraordinary enough? GOOD GRIEF!

If I were just to agree with you, up to the point in red, would that be acceptable for you? If not, why not? If so, why so?

Well, the "part in red" would be where Jesus is raised from the dead, correct? So then, up to this point, you seem to have no problem with the evidence we have which would suggest that Jesus was a real historical figure, who lived in real time, and real space, and you also seem to have no problem with believing that he had a following, got himself in trouble with the authorities, was crucified, dead, and buried? So, you have no problem believing these things upon ordinary evidence? However, when it comes to the resurrection, we need more than simply these ordinary reports? I wonder why? Did these folks report the truth up until this point, and then decide to deceive? Were they accurate up to this point, and then somehow were deceived themselves? Exactly what is your explanation for these reports? I am eager to hear an explanation from you, which will not include the "extraordinary"?

I doubt any/all claims of the 'supernatural'. Jesus being born, living for 30+ years, working as a carpenter, preaching stuff, and being executed for blasphemy seem reasonable and necessitate less 'evidence'. The rest, NOT

Again, these folks report the truth up until they report the resurrection. Please, give us an explanation for these reports, which would not include the, "extraordinary"?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #90]

Well, the burden of proof lies with the side who makes/asserts a positive claim.

This is an old argument, which did not originate with you.

Not sure why the age of an argument maters? And BTW, there is probably nothing 'new under the sun".

If you are satisfied with making arguments which have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of the matter that is up to you. Because you see, this is simply a tactic in order to shed oneself of any sort of burden. If I have made any sort of positive claims which cannot be demonstrated, please point these out to me, and we can discuss them. Otherwise, I see no point in you bringing this into the conversation, other than it is a "sound bite" which makes one feel better? A Christian who explains what they believe, based upon the facts, and evidence involved, does not own any sort of burden.

Well, at this point, all I'm suggesting is that I no longer buy the complete story. Give me the 'evidence', for which you feel is compelling, and let's flesh this out... Maybe my belief percentage will rise? Right now it's pretty low.

Heck, even Richard Dawkins has made statements that his confidence level, that a god(s) does/do not exist, is something around 6.? out of 7. Hence, it is not up to even Richard Dawkins to prove why 'god does not exist'. He simply has great doubt.

Therefore, what we end up with, is Dawkins, simply sharing with us what it is he believes, based upon the facts, and evidence, without making any sort of truth claims. So then, what is the difference when a Christian simply shares what it is they believe concerning the facts, and evidence, without making any sort of truth claims?

Would you then suggest that maybe Dawkins has a cognitive dissonance towards the likes of Christianity? Meaning, he follows the evidence where it leads for evolution, and many other subjects... But then somehow compartmentalizes, or created a differing set of rules regarding presented 'evidence' from the Bible?

And if you are less than 100% certain, why would that be?

This is really funny! My friend, we all have our doubts from time to time concerning any number of things. If one were to claim they never had any sort of doubt concerning what they believe to be true, then I would not really put a whole lot of trust into what this person had to say. However, any sort of doubt I may have would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. I can tell you this, being here on this site continues to resolve any sort of doubt.

What causes your doubt in Christianity? And specifics, for which you would not mind sharing?

The point that I should have made better, in the OP, is that you likely will never see a heated 'god debate', where one side raises their hands and states; "You know what, you are right, I'm with you now."

After the dust settles, I bet the debaters of both sides reflect upon the points made by their opponent, and likely augment/adjust their existing arguments, (or) maybe even no longer choose to use a particular argument any longer. And maybe, in some rare cases, they will start to explore what their opponent said more, and may eventually ultimately fall away from their current belief; albeit, for various reasons and over much time???

My question is, would you say that it was logic, and reason which lead you to reject what you once believed?

I guess? I would suspect this is all we have, besides 'faith/hope/trust'???

Is it a coincidence that you happen to have been raised into the right belief?

As stated above, I have rejected a tremendous amount of what I was taught as a child concerning Christianity.

Ah, but you are still under the Christian umbrella, right? I'm already aware there exists countless sects to Christianity. So as I stated above, "is it a coincidence that you happen to have been raised into the right belief?" (i.e.) The Christian umbrella... Why not Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, other other other other? I'm sure they all have their infighting too, regarding who exactly has the correct inner religion translation.

How were you able to rule out all other claimed deities/reliegions? Did you give them all a fair shake, or just yours -- (i.e.) the one you were raised within?

The goal of this thread is to first find out why one believes. If it's because of indoctrination, like it was for me, then one can then explore if these indoctrinated folks ever did or do any actual research of the arguments which look to present conflict towards the indoctrinated position(s), WITHOUT BIAS -- (if humanly possible)?

Once I did so, I really had no choice but to pretty much reject my prior indoctrinated teachings. Though, like I said prior, I still waiver from time to time.

Have you ever heard the saying, "throwing the baby out with the bath water"?

Yes. And if we continue, you will see that is not what I have done. But I touched upon a topic, for which you appear to have missed... Have you explored the 'evidence' with as little bias as possible? Or, did you venture in with an a priori belief?

When I finally decided to read the Bible, about five years ago, I wanted to believe it. But the more I read, and the more I questioned, the more things began to unravel... So, for me, the a priori belief held me in longer. -- It took longer to waiver in the opposite direction --> (to doubt).

The question is, do you make truth claims?

Sure I do. Allow me to demonstrate. We have two letters addressed to someone by the name of Theophilus, and in the first letter to this Theophilus, the author tells Theophilus, that Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, and rose again. That my friend, is a "truth claim", which can be demonstrated to be true.

True that "we have a letter(s)", and/or true that "Jesus must have rose from the dead"?

How might one know if the "resurrection claim" is true?

I do not "know", how one can claim to "know". However, I do indeed "know" how one can be convinced. You know, sort of like, Dawkins.

Okay. What evidence convinced you? Give me the first 'strong' example which comes to mind.

Who exactly is 'ordained', and how do you know?

I never said a word about anyone being "ordained". Rather, what I am saying is, God has ordained certain means of communication, such as scripture, communion, baptism, and prayer. There are those who claim to have created other means, and I am simply saying, I don't buy it!

Okay. Does this mean you do not believe God gave Moses the 10 Commandments, or that God told Noah to build an Ark, or made any covenants with anyone, or other other other? Please elaborate?

If you both read from the same book of 'truths', then why do you two disagree here?

OH MY! You know what? I have never thought about that. Maybe, the Christian claims are indeed false? You see? You continue to bring up things, which would have nothing to do with the truth of the matter in the least. And you wonder why I can come to the conclusion; you really have no reason to doubt the Christian claims? GOOD GRIEF!

This is not why I doubt Christianity. I'm asking you, point/blank, how do you know the Holy Spirit does not talk to "Venom"? Does the Book tell us one way or another? Or, have you came to this conclusion outside of the help from the Bible?

If truth is a thing, is it true I just referenced a video which points out that WLC admits, in two places, that "arguments and evidence" are not WHY he ultimately believes?

And this demonstrates exactly what in your mind?

Maybe I wasn't clear enough? "WLC admits, in two places, that "arguments and evidence" are not WHY he ultimately believes.". He tells us, point/blank, that the MAIN REASON he believes, is because (fill-in-the-blank). If you strip away all arguments and evidence, he still would believe. Thus, I would address him, like I'm now addressing "Venom".

It depends. Why do you believe? I have found, that when pressed, many Christians resort this this fundamental reason for their belief in Christ. Maybe you do not fall within this category?

I do not fall into that category. Maybe, you fell into this category when you were a Christian, along with basing your belief upon what other Christians said, and you simply transpose the way in which you sustained your belief, upon others? I can assure you, it would not be the last thing I would refer to as being a reason I believe, because I would never refer to it! Can you imagine why? Because, it would have nothing to do with it. That's right! Craig, and I read the same "book of truth" (whatever that means?) and we do not agree. Guess that demonstrates Christianity to be false?

Well, he states he believes because of the "Holy Spirit". Hence, his interpretation of the Bible almost becomes pointless.

So I ask you... How do we know the Bible is true?

My objective is to explore WHY one believes and if these reason(s) are 'sound'?

Right! More than likely there are those, who did not put a whole lot of thought into it when they "once believed", and therefore they seem to be under the impression that all Christians would be able to give them some sort of simple reason, (you know like a main reason) they believe? Meanwhile, here in the "real world" there are those of us who understand it is not that simple at all. In other words, if I were to ask one to give me the "main reason" they did not believe, and they were able to give me such a reason, I suppose, I could show you one with a simple mind? Do you agree? Or, are you under the impression that it is indeed as simple as some sort of "main reason" one would believe, or not believe? There is a thing I like to refer to as, "easy in, easy out". You know, it did not take a whole lot of thinking in order to believe, and therefore it did not take a whole lot of thinking in order for "Humpty Dumpty" to come crashing down.

I disagree. I gave you a video clip, where arguably the most well renounced apologist gave his MAIN REASON, in a nutshell. If he can do it, I bet you can too.

I myself have a lack in belief. Hence, there is really nothing to explore in regards to 'Jesus'; as explained at the top - above.

Great! I have no problem with you expressing your "lack of belief". The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist, I have no reasons to believe as I do. Unless of course, they can demonstrate this to be the case.

I'm pretty sure you believe. I just don't know how much? I. myself, would say my belief in this whole proposition stands at <1% How about you? I also want to know the 'evidence based' reason(s) for your belief?

Would you agree 'extraordinary claimed need extraordinary evidence'?

No, I would not. Again, this is not something you came up with on your own, but is rather something you have heard, which sounds good to your ears, but really has no substance! Why would an "extraordinary claim" need any more evidence than an ordinary claim? I mean if an extraordinary claim can be demonstrated to be true by ordinary evidence, do we reject the claim, since the evidence was not extraordinary enough? GOOD GRIEF!

Again, nothing is new under the sun. The evidence would be extraordinary, right?

If I gave you a book, which states "some people rose from the dead", would that be <equal> to having 100 independent and unrelated people videoing this event on their cell phones? Sure, you would still need to inquire more, but this might be a good start... But if you merely stopped at the book claim, maybe not so much???

If I were just to agree with you, up to the point in red, would that be acceptable for you? If not, why not? If so, why so?

Well, the "part in red" would be where Jesus is raised from the dead, correct? So then, up to this point, you seem to have no problem with the evidence we have which would suggest that Jesus was a real historical figure, who lived in real time, and real space, and you also seem to have no problem with believing that he had a following, got himself in trouble with the authorities, was crucified, dead, and buried? So, you have no problem believing these things upon ordinary evidence? However, when it comes to the resurrection, we need more than simply these ordinary reports? I wonder why? Did these folks report the truth up until this point, and then decide to deceive? Were they accurate up to this point, and then somehow were deceived themselves? Exactly what is your explanation for these reports? I am eager to hear an explanation from you, which will not include the "extraordinary"?

Legend, lore, oral tradition, no real eyewitnesses to account for such an event, the church, etc...

When I state I agree with you, up to a certain point, this does not necessarily mean all these facts have been proven either. It just means they are mundane and insignificant enough, to where I'm not going to sweat much investigation about them for now.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #92]

Not sure why the age of an argument maters?

I am simply pointing out that you do not seem to be thinking for yourself, but are rather simply using the same old worn out and tired arguments of others. The main thing here is though, this argument has nothing to do with attempting to arrive to the truth of the matter, because it's concern is to simply attempt to win an argument by shedding oneself of the burden. It is a tactical argument.

Well, at this point, all I'm suggesting is that I no longer buy the complete story. Give me the 'evidence', for which you feel is compelling, and let's flesh this out... Maybe my belief percentage will rise? Right now it's pretty low.

I am struggling to find a nice way to say this. So allow me to try it this way. I was brought up in a Christian home. When I became of age, (around 19) I simply did not attend any longer because I was not interested. Then, there were certain events which unfolded, and I had no choice but to investigate the claims. In other words, I really had no interest in doing such a thing. Rather, I had no other choice. With this being the case, I took on this labor filled task, consuming an enormous amount of material from all sides of the equation. This labor filled task lasted well over 2 years. Therefore, when there are those who ask for me to "give me the evidence" it is sort of insulting to me because it gives me the impression that this person seems to believe I am that simple minded?

Allow me to give you an example. There are many, many others who have done this very same thing which I have done, and have come to the same conclusions, and these folks have gone on to write book volumes describing the facts, and evidence which lead them to their conclusions. As you should be able to clearly see, I am not an author, and even if I were, I do not have the time, or the space here to accomplish such a task. So then, either you are under the impression that I am a simple minded person or, you are under the impression that it is really that simple. Moreover, it is not my goal to persuade you to believe as I do. I have no problem with what you may happen to believe concerning Christianity.

Would you then suggest that maybe Dawkins has a cognitive dissonance towards the likes of Christianity? Meaning, he follows the evidence where it leads for evolution, and many other subjects... But then somehow compartmentalizes, or created a differing set of rules regarding presented 'evidence' from the Bible?

What I am saying is, Dawkins avoids the burden of proof by admitting he is not making any sort of truth claims. Rather, he is simply explaining what he believes concerning Christianity, along with how strongly he believes as he does. So look closely here. This argument is simply a tactic in order to shift the "burden of proof" from himself to the Christian. It is really sad. The problem with this is, the Christian who simply explains what they believe, along with the reasons they believe as they do, going on to share exactly how strongly they believe it, owns no burden. To me, it is simply a dressed up version of the old "school yard arguments" in which one kid makes a claim, and the other simply continues to yell out, "prove it".

What causes your doubt in Christianity? And specifics, for which you would not mind sharing?

I think you are reading way to much into it here. My point is, as humans we all have doubts, exactly because we are human. Therefore, one would be foolish to say, they never have any doubts. So then, my doubts concern my own abilities.

I guess? I would suspect this is all we have, besides 'faith/hope/trust'???

I would like to dig a little deeper here? Was logic and reason involved when you were a believer? Or, logic and reason only came into the equation when you rejected what you once believed?

How were you able to rule out all other claimed deities/reliegions? Did you give them all a fair shake, or just yours -- (i.e.) the one you were raised within?

I do not need to know a thing about any other religion, nor if there would be any reason at all to believe these other claims, to understand, and know whether there are very good reasons to believe the Christian claims. You continue to bring up these same old tired, and worn out arguments, as if I am simple minded enough that I have not already thought of them myself? Moreover, these types of arguments get no one closer to the truth. I mean, is the thinking process, there are many religions in the world which necessitates many of them have to be false, therefore it is likely they are all false?

Have you explored the 'evidence' with as little bias as possible? Or, did you venture in with an a priori belief?

Why would you even ask such a question? If I were to say, "I was able to lay aside any bias I had", I highly doubt you would buy such a thing, and I would not blame you. We all have bias. The most honest answer I can give would be, I am fully aware of my bias. However, I was faced with a situation in which I was forced to attempt to get to the truth of the matter, and I did not care which way the road lead. I can tell you this, if one truly understands Christianity, then I cannot imagine such a one, wanting to believe it.

When I finally decided to read the Bible, about five years ago, I wanted to believe it.

Well then, I think you have just demonstrated one can have a bias toward what they would rather believe, but come to a different conclusion. In fact, I can point to a number of folks who were completely opposed to Christianity, who went on to study the facts, and evidence involved in order to disprove it, who came out of this study to be a believer. So what?

But the more I read, and the more I questioned, the more things began to unravel... So, for me, the a priori belief held me in longer. -- It took longer to waiver in the opposite direction --> (to doubt).

Okay? I have no problem with that.

True that "we have a letter(s)", and/or true that "Jesus must have rose from the dead"?

The sentence speaks for itself. Let's look at it again,

We have two letters addressed to someone by the name of Theophilus, and in the first letter to this Theophilus, the author tells Theophilus, that Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, and rose again.

Seems pretty clear to me?

Okay. What evidence convinced you? Give me the first 'strong' example which comes to mind.

Again, there have been book volumes authored concerning this very thing. I mean do you really believe I am that simple minded?

Okay. Does this mean you do not believe God gave Moses the 10 Commandments, or that God told Noah to build an Ark, or made any covenants with anyone, or other other other? Please elaborate?

Well, if you have read the Bible as you say, then you surely came across this passage,

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son

So then, as you can see, God spoke in the past in different ways, which would include Moses, Noah, the covenants, other, other, other.

This is not why I doubt Christianity. I'm asking you, point/blank, how do you know the Holy Spirit does not talk to "Venom"?

I never said, "I know"! I said, I do not believe it. There is a lot involved here, and I would have to go through a lot of scripture. So let me put as simple as possible. The author of 2 Peter tells us, the Holy Spirit was involved in the writing of Scripture. Therefore, if one is hearing from the Holy Spirit, then I am convinced it is confined to the Scriptures. This is as simple as I can make it without going into great detail.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough? "WLC admits, in two places, that "arguments and evidence" are not WHY he ultimately believes.". He tells us, point/blank, that the MAIN REASON he believes, is because (fill-in-the-blank). If you strip away all arguments and evidence, he still would believe. Thus, I would address him, like I'm now addressing "Venom".

I have already stated I do not agree with WLC on this point.

So I ask you... How do we know the Bible is true?

I cannot say "I know the content of the Bible is true", but I can say, I am convinced it is true, with great certainty.

I disagree. I gave you a video clip, where arguably the most well renounced apologist gave his MAIN REASON, in a nutshell. If he can do it, I bet you can too.

Well then, you have it all figured out I guess? But, I can assure you that there is not one simple thing I can point to and say, "this is the main reason I believe". It seems to me there are those who are looking for simple answers, and I have none.

If I gave you a book, which states "some people rose from the dead", would that be <equal> to having 100 independent and unrelated people videoing this event on their cell phones? Sure, you would still need to inquire more, but this might be a good start... But if you merely stopped at the book claim, maybe not so much???

My friend, I do not think they had cell phones back in the day. What they did have, they used. In fact, the author of the first letter to Theophilus had this to say,

Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,

So, as you can see this author tells Theophilus that, "many" wrote about these things. That would have been over 2000 years ago, and just because we do not have them all, does not mean that there was not many who wrote about these things. But, I guess it is possible this author was lying to Theophilus, for whatever reason?

Again, the argument that "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence" sounds good to the ears, but lacks in any substance.

Legend, lore, oral tradition, no real eyewitnesses to account for such an event, the church, etc...

So, in your mind the things above can explain the content of the NT, and it does not include the extraordinary? You may want to rethink that? Here is the way one NT author puts it,

For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur. For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: “This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted.” When this voice was conveyed from heaven, we ourselves heard it, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

So then, as you can see, this author tells his audience at the time, these reports were not based upon, "fables". Rather, the author claims to have been an eyewitness, who was there with Jesus at the time. Of course the author could have been lying, but you would think the original audience would have been able to know if the author would have been alive at the time to actually make such a claim.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You almost started to address my point here... To stay relevant to the "Jesus' claim alone, we can exclude 'lying' from the equation entirely, and still have plenty of means to doubt, not accept, or reject the claim for being lacking. (i.e.):

OR, we have plenty of means to conclude that the origins of the disciples beliefs is best explained by way of the claims actually being true.

- Maybe Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah himself. Maybe this was a (later addition) made by the Gospel writer's; due to the topic of faith.

Based on reasons we (believers) have to conclude that the Gospel's of Matthew and John originated from apostles (Matthew and John, obviously) of Jesus...if the claim that Jesus is/was the Messiah was a later addition due to the topic of faith, then that would mean that Matthew and John were lying, since they would have added something to the Gospel that they knew to be false.

But history tells the story of (specifically John) believing that Christ is the Messiah.

So what you have here is a failed hypothesis, sir.

- Legend and lore does not necessarily manifest exclusively by lying.

Which is fine, as long as lying/deception is taken out of the equation.

- Oral tradition <and> the telephone game are more synonymous than many theists sometimes care to admit

Great point. That is why we have written testimony...and what is written on paper takes precedence over word-of-mouth any day.

Do tell? You know who wrote Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?

Keywords: "We have a pretty good idea". Nothings is set in stone. However, as you stated prior and admittedly, the Gospels are anonymous.

We get our information on Gospel authorship from the early Church fathers. Just like historical "facts" in general, it isn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, but rather by preponderance of the evidence.

You may not be convinced by it, but I am.

The average lifespan, at this time period was age 35. It takes quite a bit of faith to make the assumption you are making

First off, I ain't buying that 35 was the average lifespan. Second, average or not, it isn't as if people were just dropping dead once they hit age 35...obviously, some people lived longer...just like the average lifespan in the USA is 78, which doesn't mean that to turn 78 is a death sentence.

Allow me to elaborate... Is it possible the canonized document(s), for which you have read, is the same as the one first written? I doubt it

Well, allow me to elaborate. Is it possible the canonized documents(s), for which you are skeptical, is the same as the one first written? I don't doubt it

Second, we have the testimony of Paul, who stated that he met with Peter and James...and Paul also gives us corroborating information in his writings which predate the Gospels.

So we have two sources of corroborating information pertaining to certain...lets say... events...which makes for an excellent case of historical verification.

Dang it, the nuh-uh defense? Ratz! Foiled again!

Because sometimes, it just ain't worth it.

Historical consensus places 'Mark' at around 65-80AD. We do not have the original(s) to compare against what was written later.

We have reasons to conclude that no Gospel besides that of John's can be said to have been written later than 70AD.

We also suspect there was more than one author for 'Mark', via Mark 16:9-20.

Mark 16:9-20 is irrelevant to anything being discussed here.

Why does it matter how many people believe something? If the believers of Islam should happen to surpass Christianity, then what?

Excuse me, sir. You are the one who stated "I find it quite peculiar that Jesus expects for the human population to accept these highly important claims".

My point is simply; "A lot of the human population have already accepted these highly important claims".

And besides that; no one is claiming that because X amount of people believes Y, then therefore, Y is true.

Neither said nor implied.

My point is that Jesus's intention was to assure His message was passed down, as TRUTH, based upon the known fault(s) of antiquity?

Well, when you identify a known fault of antiquity, then it will be considered.

Okay, let me spell it out for you... Was there ever a 'time' where there was completely 'nothing'?

No. Because as a theist, I believe that God has always existed and God is not "nothing".

Before I was born, did I exist? The answer would be no. This goes right back to ex materia.

No qualms from me.

Again, we know the 'universe' exists. We do not know if "God" exists. The argument from ignorance fallacy does not merely poof him there.

The argument against infinite regression (which you've yet to address) requires an external, immaterial first cause with freedom of the will to exist.

We call this first cause; God.

So, we do know if God exists.

You have missed my point. it's that whole pesky topic of 'something' v. 'nothing'. Did God dwell in 'something' or 'nothing'?

Then that is what you should have asked. God did dwell in something. What that is, I don't know..

If something, who created 'something'?

Assuming that something was created. This is an argument from ignorance.

You are then right back to infinite regress

Faulty premises leads to faulty conclusions, as is evident here.

If "nothing" at all, then please explain what is 'nothing'? Oh, wait a minute, you already did... "state of nonexistence"

Point?

Fallacious and already explained....

Did you? Oh, I must of missed it.

Take away the existence of the "Kalam", and you would still believe, right?

Gaslighting. You originally asked what was my main reason for believing in God. I stated that the KCA is the main reason, although it isn't the ONLY reason.

Now, if you want to then give a hypothetical at which the KCA was proven false (which is impossible) and thus taken out of the equation, then obviously I can no longer appeal to it, so I would have to appeal to other reasons I believe in God.

You are making it seem as if you've presented this grand of a dilemma and this magnificent point is being made, when in actuality, you haven't proven the KCA false (because you can't)...so the hypothetical is meaningless and one big red herring, to be honest.

Well, then in your case, and in this instance, theology is then guilty of fallacious reasoning. As I already stated prior, we likely have more to still discover, than has already been discovered.

Well, wake me up when you discover how infinite regression is possible.

Kool, then science would have been chucked into the trash centuries ago Heck, we likely would not even be exchanging over the internet. Every unexplained event would be ---> 'god did it'. If it wasn't for science, I would already be dead.

The only reason the internet exists and we are able to exchange over it, is because "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

Nope. You made an assertion, and I am addressing your direct assertion. Please answer the direct question. Failure to do so, for the third time, does not make the presented issue go away. It just means you are avoiding it... You claim the 'Holy Spirit' communicates with you. I'm exploring this assertion. I'm exploring how one knows whether or not the 'Holy Spirit' speaks/communicates with them...

If a Christians thinks it is always bad to strike their child with a rod, does this mean they are being persuaded by "evil"?

Let me get this straight...the Bible says do not spare the rod...and you are giving a thought experiment of Christian parents who thinks it is always bad to spare the rod.

So basically, Christian parents who think an action of which God permits, they think it is bad??

Sounds like I already answered your question. I said, "if it is from the Holy Spirit, it should be in line with the Bible".

Your question was answered.

Next..

Oh, so it's not emotion? Please make up your mind.

It is emotions. The emotion of LOVE. I said EXAMINE all religions (the ones you decide), and follow your heart.

Um, you brought up the teleological argument, not me. If it's not relevant, then why bring it up?

I already addressed why the argument from design was mentioned.

[We_Are_VENOM]

But if they may be deterministic they may as well be uncaused.
Quantum mechanics deals with indeterminate events meaning events could be either causal or non-causal.

If the events are non-causal, then they are not deterministic. That is the very nature of dealing with determinism (whether philosophical or otherwise), meaning that causes are predetermined by external factors.

“The time of a radioactive decay is uncaused in the sense that, if it has not decayed at a time t, then it’s probability of decaying in the next small time increment, dt, is just some constant (the decay rate for that atom) times dt. It is independent of the time t so it can’t be modeled by any deterministic process, it is a stochastic process called a Poisson process.”

So proponents of the KALAM can’t say the premise is true.

That is my point, you are appealing to one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM). Please enlighten me as to why the Copenhagen interpretation is more credible than, lets say, the Many Worlds interpretation...which is a deterministic interpretation.

You (and others who appeal to this) are cherry picking from ONE interpretation that agrees with you position, while ignoring the ones that don't. No one knows which one is correct and the good thing about the argument against infinite regress is; it is completely independent of QM and stands firm regardless of which QM concept you appeal to.

Also because of Uncertainty principle you cannot know that is true. Therefore again you cannot say conclusion is true because premises are true.
You would have to be omniscient.

But the Kalam doesn't rise or fall on whether or not we can know with certain the position of a particle...and in fact, I could care less. The argument against infinite regress isn't going anywhere...that is what I do know.

But wait omniscience is a logically impossible because no being can really know if it really knows everything.

I can think of a possible world at which an omniscient being knows that he knows everything.

Q: Are u not saying the premise is true that Everything that begins to exist has a cause?(Yes/No)

Yes.

Q: Says who that there are only two options? The arrogant ignorant who can’t imagine anything else?
Q: Because it all “feels” unintuitively?
Q: If I or you can’t imagine a third option does that mean it does not exist?
Q: How is that not argument from lack of imagination, ignorance and false dichotomy fallacy?

I could have swore I just said "provide a third option and I will add it to the list".

Q:Who said which hypothesis is better? I didn’t made such subjective qualitive assessments.

Sounds to me like you are ready to accept it as is, despite the admitted ridiculousness of it.

Was just pointing the logical fallacy in your reasoning: argument of ignorance, from lack of imagination and false dichotomy fallacy.

Oh, is that what you were doing? I couldn't tell.

Q:How is this line of reasoning any better then what ancient people did when they, because of lack of imagination, put God as the explanation for the sun, moon, epilepsy, winds, tectonic plate movement?

They sure did, and with good reason.

We were talking about equivocation and using stuff that we know can exist and exists to prove something that we don’t know if even can exist.
X = both material and efficient cause
Y = only efficient cause ex nihilo

Everything that begins to exist has a X.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a Y.

X is different from Y.
Equivocation exist cause X is different from Y. The difference is present and significant.

If the argument was like:

A both material and efficient cause
B both material and efficient cause

Everything that begins to exist has a A.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a B.

Equivocation does not exist cause A is not different from B. The difference is non-existent.

Correction, that is what YOU were talking about. I am focusing on infinite regression, and how this is impossible and cannot exist in reality. That is what I'm talking about and continually emphasizing...and something you've yet to deal with.

I can’t know what every theist believes when they say universe.
I taught Christians refer to the universe as all that resulted from the Big Bang conform the Big Bang theory because it’s supposes a beginning of the universe and has support from scientists and supports the Bible hypothesis.

Q: What do you mean by the universe?

I just told you what I meant by universe, yet you are still asking.

Q: Who says events have to exist outside of the universe between universes in a multiverse? Or even if there is an outside? Maybe the universe is all there is, existing in timeless state (B theory of time where Past, Present, Future exists eternally as a four-dimensional spacetime block where temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time is just an illusion, no-boundary proposal where no notion of time available to refer to)? Scientists take this idea very seriously.
Again with I can’t imagine therefore non-existence and GOD. )
“B-theory in theoretical physics[edit]
The B-theory of time has received support from physicists.[17][18] This is likely due to its compatibility with physics and the fact that many theories such as special relativity, the ADD model, and brane cosmology, point to a theory of time similar to B-theory.
In special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity shows that there is no unique present, and that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment.
Many of special relativity's now-proven counterintuitive predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation, are a result of this. Relativity of simultaneity is often taken to imply eternalism (and hence a B-theory of time), where the present for different observers is a time slice of the four-dimensional universe. This is demonstrated in the Rietdijk–Putnam argument and in Roger Penrose's advanced form of this argument, the Andromeda paradox.[19]
It is therefore common (though not universal) for B-theorists to be four-dimensionalists, that is, to believe that objects are extended in time as well as in space and therefore have temporal as well as spatial parts. This is sometimes called a time-slice ontology.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

Even on the B theory of time, there is no prevention of applying a natural number to every event in history and still being unable to find a placement of the highest number in the infinite set....which is yet again why infinite regression is impossible, as it gives rise to absurd results such as this.

The problem is that through out history since the dawn of mankind, humans have done this fallacious thing filling gaps of knowledge with God.
Science came and prove them wrong. They kept doing this.
You are doing this again.
You think you gap is more special then those of the ancient men but it is not.
There is whole track record of humans fallaciously doing this.
This track record its in favor of science not religion.

Can science give you infinite regression?

Did you really thought I believe free will exists.
I said that if it exist it needs logically to be uncaused.

Observation so to avoid future straw-mans: I do believe our choices are completely determined by previously existing causes(past events(memories), knowledge, beliefs and innate psychological traits).

Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.

I agree.

Therefore free will needs to have uncaused components. Either the agent chooses something uncaused in way independent of biological process and/or past events(memories), knowledge, beliefs and innate psychological traits or he chooses something because of deterministic biological process and/or of past events(memories), knowledge, beliefs and innate psychological traits.

The former. Obviously, with God, there is no biological processes to consider.

Therefore “ Everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence” cannot be said to be true together with free will existing.

I still don't understand how you land there. Looks like a non sequitur to me.

I went with this line of reasoning because religious(Christians) people believe free will exists together with the whole judgement thing.
If free will exists there are things the begin uncaused and therefore the first premise is bogus.

Don't know how you got here as well.

Please don’t evade:
We may have physical as in material, natural but not space-time continuum physical as oppose to immaterial, supernatural, non-natural, magical as multiple causes(that may be sentient(hive mind or not) or not) that are nor made of what u think of as physical for the universe(all the resulted from the Big Bang conform the Big Bang theory). Or maybe multiple non-physical causes as immaterial, supernatural, non-natural, magical.
Therefore having a single cause for the existence of the universe is bogus. If one refers as the "universe" the multiverse in which many universes(space-time continuum and the like)exist or the cacaverse if the multiverse exists in a cacaverse then one still has the problem of one cause fallacy.
Maybe we have a first causes. The first movers. The primodial causers. As in plural.

Occams Razor; only one cause is needed to produce the effect (only one omnipotent God is needed/required), so no need to postulate beyond what is needed to produce the effect.

Second, infinite regression problem (with the whole multiple non-physical causes idea).

It may well be that the multiverse which the ultimate reality or the cacaverse which is the ultimate reality is uncaused as the first cause.

I don't think you understand...an uncaused FIRST CAUSE is absolutely, positively required. Why? Because without such, infinite regression rears its ugly head, which is logically impossible.

Please acknowledge/deal with this problem.

[alexxcJRO]

If the events are non-causal, then they are not deterministic. That is the very nature of dealing with determinism (whether philosophical or otherwise), meaning that causes are predetermined by external factors.

Your not correcting me if that what you taught.

“Indeterminism is the idea that events (or certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically.”

I said :” Quantum mechanics deals with indeterminate events meaning events could be either causal or non-causal.”

Q: So what is with that reply?

Here some food for thought:
“Alice and Bob, the stars of so many thought experiments, are cooking dinner when mishaps ensue. Alice accidentally drops a plate; the sound startles Bob, who burns himself on the stove and cries out. In another version of events, Bob burns himself and cries out, causing Alice to drop a plate.
Over the last decade, quantum physicists have been exploring the implications of a strange realization: In principle, both versions of the story can happen at once. That is, events can occur in an indefinite causal order, where both “A causes B” and “B causes A” are simultaneously true.
“It sounds outrageous,” admitted Časlav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna.
The possibility follows from the quantum phenomenon known as superposition, where particles maintain all possible realities simultaneously until the moment they’re measured. In labs in Austria, China, Australia and elsewhere, physicists observe indefinite causal order by putting a particle of light (called a photon) in a superposition of two states. They then subject one branch of the superposition to process A followed by process B, and subject the other branch to B followed by A. In this procedure, known as the quantum switch, A’s outcome influences what happens in B, and vice versa; the photon experiences both causal orders simultaneously.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum- ... -20210311/

Indefinite causality
“Causality is a concept deeply rooted in our understanding of the world and lies at the basis of the very notion of time. It plays an essential role in our cognition — enabling us to make predictions, determine the causes of certain events, and choose the appropriate actions to achieve our goals. But even in quantum mechanics, for which countless measurements and preparations have been rethought, the assumption of pre-existing causal structure has never been challenged — until now.
Giulia Rubino and colleagues have designed an experiment to show that causal order can be genuinely indefinite. By creating wires between a pair of operating gates whose geometry is controlled by a quantum switch — the state of single photon — they realized a superposition of gate orders. From the output, they measured the so-called causal witness, which specifies whether a given process is causally ordered or not. The result brings a new set of questions to the fore — namely, where does causal order come from, and is it a necessary property of nature? “
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4134

That is my point, you are appealing to one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM). Please enlighten me as to why the Copenhagen interpretation is more credible than, lets say, the Many Worlds interpretation...which is a deterministic interpretation.


You (and others who appeal to this) are cherry picking from ONE interpretation that agrees with you position, while ignoring the ones that don't. No one knows which one is correct and the good thing about the argument against infinite regress is; it is completely independent of QM and stands firm regardless of which QM concept you appeal to.

Straw-man.
This: “The time of a radioactive decay is uncaused in the sense that, if it has not decayed at a time t, then it’s probability of decaying in the next small time increment, dt, is just some constant (the decay rate for that atom) times dt. It is independent of the time t so it can’t be modeled by any deterministic process, it is a stochastic process called a Poisson process.” is a quote of someone else. Not me.
I am no stating that one interpretation is better then others or choosing one. Religious people do this in a pathetic attempt to fit their narrative without demonstrating their beloved subjective pondering, hypothesis, interpretation is true.
I am not claiming anything I am just pointing to the unknown. Atom decay may have uncaused elements to it. Therefore unless the religious bring empirical evidence to show the determinism. Everything that begin to exist is caused cannot be said to be true.
Q: Do you understand? Or do you need me to explain again? )

But the Kalam doesn't rise or fall on whether or not we can know with certain the position of a particle...and in fact, I could care less. The argument against infinite regress isn't going anywhere...that is what I do know.

KALAM has the premise: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence”.
Quantum mechanics deals with indeterminate events meaning events could be either causal or non-causal. Virtual particles and radioactive decay may be uncaused. This is problematic for the premise of the KALAM.
Q: How is that so hard to understand? Do you want me to spell it for you?

I can think of a possible world at which an omniscient being knows that he knows everything.

Q: How can a being check if it really knows everything?
Please enlighten me.
But it’s irrelevant because the point is about the proponents of the KALAM.
They surely are not omniscient.
So again because of the Uncertainty principle you cannot know that is true that “Everything that begins to exists has a cause to its existence”. Therefore bye bye KALAM.

I could have swore I just said "provide a third option and I will add it to the list".

I don’t need to provide anything. I did not made a claim when I was pointing the false dichotomy fallacy.
You were the one stating there can be only two options in post #78.

They sure did, and with good reason.

Q:What good reason? They kept being wrong.
Sun God. Wrong.
Moon God. Wrong.
Winds God. Wrong.
Tectonic plates angels. Wrong.
Epilepsy divine. Wrong.

Correction, that is what YOU were talking about. I am focusing on infinite regression, and how this is impossible and cannot exist in reality. That is what I'm talking about and continually emphasizing...and something you've yet to deal with.

We are talking of KALAM which use the word cause two times. The diference exists in meaning. Therefore equivocation fallacy.
It feels like I am talking with walls.

I just told you what I meant by universe, yet you are still asking.

I must have miss it.
Tell me again.
Proponents like W.L.Craig refer to the universe as all that resulted from the Big Bang conform the Big Bang theory because it’s supposes a beginning of the universe and has support from scientists and supports the Bible hypothesis.
Craig:” For the universe comprises all contiguous spacetime reality”.

Even on the B theory of time, there is no prevention of applying a natural number to every event in history and still being unable to find a placement of the highest number in the infinite set....which is yet again why infinite regression is impossible, as it gives rise to absurd results such as this.

Temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time is just an illusion.
Every moment of time, all there is just exists at once. Imagine time like a space dimension.
On B theory, all of the moments of time exist tenselessly at once, so the absurdities discussed by al-Ghazali do not arise.
Also the phrase “begins to exist” begs the question on B-theory about what it means for something to begin if the claim is that beginnings only happen on an A-theory.
Craig for example insists upon the A-theory as a necessary part of the kalam cosmological argument.
According to Craig KALAM “presupposes from start to finish an A-theory of time.”
On the B-theory time as I see it, could be infinite without having problems because of infinite regress, because it does not become infinite by successive addition. And as long as we do not “move through” time, there is no temporal regress going back in time. The various moments of time stand in tenseless relations to all the other moments.
Avicenna for example believed actual infinites are possible in certain conditions.

Can science give you infinite regression?

But you cannot use ignorance because of an issue as an argument from god.
Its fallacious as conform the fallacy argument from ignorance.

The former. Obviously, with God, there is no biological processes to consider.
I still don't understand how you land there. Looks like a non sequitur to me.
Don't know how you got here as well.

Q: If an agent chooses an action not because of a prior event, his choice are not contingent of the past events how does he chooses?

Q: Are u saying its random but not uncaused? Explain.

My opinion. Maybe I don't get something:

Partially, subjectively random means hard to predict but deterministic.
Completely, objectively random are impossible to predict therefore non-deterministic.

A completely random or objectively random event is uncaused.
Free will in order to exist needs to be completely, objectively random.
Therefore first premise bogus.

Q:It’s clear now?

I don't think you understand...an uncaused FIRST CAUSE is absolutely, positively required. Why? Because without such, infinite regression rears its ugly head, which is logically impossible.

Please acknowledge/deal with this problem.

No infinite regression in what I said earlier.
First cause=cacaverse->multiverse->universe.

Occams Razor; only one cause is needed to produce the effect (only one omnipotent God is needed/required), so no need to postulate beyond what is needed to produce the effect.

Second, infinite regression problem (with the whole multiple non-physical causes idea).

Occam razor does not get you out of the fallacy.
“The simplest explanation is usually the best one. “
Subjective qualitive ponderings cannot be said to be the truth or objective. Usually is the key word.
Its funny how believers in Christianity(triune god) argue for one being better then 3 or 4 or 5 or …
If one says simplicity is a maximally great making attribute then it follows because it is simpler to be a oneness of self, one rational faculty instead of a multi-personal self, multiple rational faculties; God would have to be one person, one rational faculty: Unitarian God.(God would also would not have to share the other maximally great properties).
On the other hand if one says that complexity is a great making attribute then it follows because it is more complex, greater to be a multi-personal self, multiple rational faculties instead of a oneness of self, God would have to be multi-person. But 4 is greater the 3, 5 greater then 6, 1000 greater then 999, ...; therefore God would have to be of infinite persons(Hive mind- Swarm Intelligence).
Q: Are you saying that one mind is better then hive-mind of three(Trinity)?

No infinite regression problem if the multiple non-physical causes exist uncaused together all as "first movers".

[POI]

You almost started to address my point here... To stay relevant to the "Jesus' claim alone, we can exclude 'lying' from the equation entirely, and still have plenty of means to doubt, not accept, or reject the claim for being lacking. (i.e.):

OR, we have plenty of means to conclude that the origins of the disciples beliefs is best explained by way of the claims actually being true.

Many people believe many things. I would not call any of them liars. So please stop with the lair bit. I'm not insinuating anyone lied. But, as we know, what one believes is not necessarily what makes a claim true, right?

- Maybe Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah himself. Maybe this was a (later addition) made by the Gospel writer's; due to the topic of faith.

Based on reasons we (believers) have to conclude that the Gospel's of Matthew and John originated from apostles (Matthew and John, obviously) of Jesus...if the claim that Jesus is/was the Messiah was a later addition due to the topic of faith, then that would mean that Matthew and John were lying, since they would have added something to the Gospel that they knew to be false.

But history tells the story of (specifically John) believing that Christ is the Messiah.

So what you have here is a failed hypothesis, sir.

Again, please stop with the lying bit. I'm not claiming anyone lied. Just like when I read the Rig Veda, the Kuran, or other...

- Legend and lore does not necessarily manifest exclusively by lying.

Which is fine, as long as lying/deception is taken out of the equation.

Kool. So if we are to engage upon the (L)ord, (L)iar, (L)unatic trilemma; we can then also explore (L)egend.

- Oral tradition <and> the telephone game are more synonymous than many theists sometimes care to admit

Great point. That is why we have written testimony...and what is written on paper takes precedence over word-of-mouth any day.

Written testimony which could only have developed <after> decades of the telephone game. I ask you now... Did any eyewitnesses write this testimony? Or, was this testimony the writings of what others, and maybe even themselves, merely believed?

Do tell? You know who wrote Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?

Keywords: "We have a pretty good idea". Nothings is set in stone. However, as you stated prior and admittedly, the Gospels are anonymous.

Great, so we agree that they are unknown. Hence, all we can do is speculate many possibilities.

We get our information on Gospel authorship from the early Church fathers. Just like historical "facts" in general, it isn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, but rather by preponderance of the evidence.

You may not be convinced by it, but I am.

I'm not convinced.

The average lifespan, at this time period was age 35. It takes quite a bit of faith to make the assumption you are making

First off, I ain't buying that 35 was the average lifespan. Second, average or not, it isn't as if people were just dropping dead once they hit age 35...obviously, some people lived longer...just like the average lifespan in the USA is 78, which doesn't mean that to turn 78 is a death sentence.

How old was "Mark" when Jesus died? Now take that number, and add at least 40 years. Then add another minimum of 15 years for Matthew and Luke. Then add yet another 10-20 years for John. How old they have been when they wrote these Gospels?

Oh, and BTW, do we have the originals; to compare to the copies of copies you have read?

Allow me to elaborate... Is it possible the canonized document(s), for which you have read, is the same as the one first written? I doubt it

Well, allow me to elaborate. Is it possible the canonized documents(s), for which you are skeptical, is the same as the one first written? I don't doubt it

Second, we have the testimony of Paul, who stated that he met with Peter and James...and Paul also gives us corroborating information in his writings which predate the Gospels.

So we have two sources of corroborating information pertaining to certain...lets say... events...which makes for an excellent case of historical verification.

We do not have the source documents. We also know changes/additions have been added by secondary authors (i.e.) Mark 16:9-20. But even if we had the originals, this does not mean it is fact. Why? Because we know that a minimum of decades of the telephone game had to take place, before anything was written to paper. (i.e.) the Gospel accounts....

Also, let me get this straight... Your hope/trust/faith hinges upon Paul's second hand account? Paul was not a direct eyewitness to a resurrection himself.

My point is that Jesus's intention was to assure His message was passed down, as TRUTH, based upon the known fault(s) of antiquity?

Well, when you identify a known fault of antiquity, then it will be considered.

It varies, from claim to claim. Let's fast-forward to the resurrection claim...

- are these records from first hand accounts? No, none are...
- is the claim plausible under the laws of physics? No, so right there, it's suspect...
- have these claims been reliably preserved? No, only the copies of the copies of the copies have been.
- are the claims politically or socially unbiased? No, the Gospels were canonized by the church, who were already believers. Think Fox v. MSNBC for example
- were any of the authors eyewitnesses? No
- are all the sources consistent? No

Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is really the only way one could account for a one time claimed supernatural event. Do we have this? The answer is no. We have Paul's second hand account, and then some much later 'Gospels'.

You have missed my point. it's that whole pesky topic of 'something' v. 'nothing'. Did God dwell in 'something' or 'nothing'?

Then that is what you should have asked. God did dwell in something. What that is, I don't know..

My point is that you do not need to know what that 'something is, but that he had to dwell in 'something'. Which you admit. This means 'something' else must of had to always exist, along side 'God'. This means 'something, besides 'God', had to always be as well. Hence, God did not create this 'something'. Or did He? If He did, this means, at some point, God dwelled in 'nothing'; which you already rejected.

Kool, then science would have been chucked into the trash centuries ago Heck, we likely would not even be exchanging over the internet. Every unexplained event would be ---> 'god did it'. If it wasn't for science, I would already be dead.

The only reason the internet exists and we are able to exchange over it, is because "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

You continue to double down. But this does not address my observation anyways. Science has yet to offer up a 'god did it' conclusion for anything. Thus far, all discoveries made, have yet to demonstrate "God's" hand in anything. But let's continue to keep our fingers crossed I guess.

To already reconcile that 'God did it", seems intellectually lazy; especially since all passed and current discovery has yet to demonstrate any such 'god(s)'.

Nope. You made an assertion, and I am addressing your direct assertion. Please answer the direct question. Failure to do so, for the third time, does not make the presented issue go away. It just means you are avoiding it... You claim the 'Holy Spirit' communicates with you. I'm exploring this assertion. I'm exploring how one knows whether or not the 'Holy Spirit' speaks/communicates with them...

If a Christians thinks it is always bad to strike their child with a rod, does this mean they are being persuaded by "evil"?

Let me get this straight...the Bible says do not spare the rod...and you are giving a thought experiment of Christian parents who thinks it is always bad to spare the rod.

So basically, Christian parents who think an action of which God permits, they think it is bad??

Sounds like I already answered your question. I said, "if it is from the Holy Spirit, it should be in line with the Bible".

Your question was answered.

Next..

The Bible tells the reader that if you don't hit your child with a rod, you are a "bad" and "unloving" parent.

"Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him" Prov. 13:24

"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol" Prov. 23:13-14

"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him" Prov. 22:15

So, I still ask anew, since you appear to be tap dancing around the question:

Attempt number 4 --> If a Christians thinks it is always bad to strike their child with a rod, does this mean they are being persuaded by "evil"? A simple (yes or no) will suffice.

Please remember, we are trying to determine how one knows if the "Holy Spirit" speaks to them.

Oh, so it's not emotion? Please make up your mind.

It is emotions. The emotion of LOVE. I said EXAMINE all religions (the ones you decide), and follow your heart.

You keep flip-flopping. Love determines truth?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #92]

Not sure why the age of an argument maters?

I am simply pointing out that you do not seem to be thinking for yourself, but are rather simply using the same old worn out and tired arguments of others. The main thing here is though, this argument has nothing to do with attempting to arrive to the truth of the matter, because it's concern is to simply attempt to win an argument by shedding oneself of the burden. It is a tactical argument.

Ah, your beef is you think we doubters of such assertions are avoiding a 'necessitated' burden. Got it. This explains the hostility to come, from reading your continued response below... I will be more than happy to justify my assertions, when I make them.

I am struggling to find a nice way to say this. So allow me to try it this way. I was brought up in a Christian home. When I became of age, (around 19) I simply did not attend any longer because I was not interested. Then, there were certain events which unfolded, and I had no choice but to investigate the claims. In other words, I really had no interest in doing such a thing. Rather, I had no other choice. With this being the case, I took on this labor filled task, consuming an enormous amount of material from all sides of the equation. This labor filled task lasted well over 2 years. Therefore, when there are those who ask for me to "give me the evidence" it is sort of insulting to me because it gives me the impression that this person seems to believe I am that simple minded?

I don't think you are simple minded, and I know everyone has a story to tell; which exceeds the 1800 character limit of any post here.

But I have also come to understand, that after one ponders these core beliefs, like you most likely have, one can also pair down their explanations, and trim the fat, and start by issuing categories which drive their beliefs.

If the opposite question was asked of me, (i.e.) "what is the main reason(s) you no longer believe?", I could furnish bullet points(s) for further exploration. I guess that makes me simple minded?

Venturing back to your first voluntary response, you cited the same bullet points I listed in the OP. Care to explore the very first one? I.E. "we all invoke type 1 errors"? If not, care to start with another?

What causes your doubt in Christianity? And specifics, for which you would not mind sharing?

I think you are reading way to much into it here. My point is, as humans we all have doubts, exactly because we are human. Therefore, one would be foolish to say, they never have any doubts. So then, my doubts concern my own abilities.

I agree with what you said above.

What exactly causes your doubts? I would really like to know?

I guess? I would suspect this is all we have, besides 'faith/hope/trust'???

I would like to dig a little deeper here? Was logic and reason involved when you were a believer?

Yes.

How were you able to rule out all other claimed deities/reliegions? Did you give them all a fair shake, or just yours -- (i.e.) the one you were raised within?

I do not need to know a thing about any other religion, nor if there would be any reason at all to believe these other claims, to understand, and know whether there are very good reasons to believe the Christian claims. You continue to bring up these same old tired, and worn out arguments, as if I am simple minded enough that I have not already thought of them myself? Moreover, these types of arguments get no one closer to the truth. I mean, is the thinking process, there are many religions in the world which necessitates many of them have to be false, therefore it is likely they are all false?

Again, there is nothing new under the sun. Nothing you have told me is really anything new. But I still would like to hear your rationale, since I'm conversing with you. Could you please try to better get a hold of your apparent hostility in these responses? No one is forcing you to engage. This is all voluntary. If I am wasting your time, then please stop responding. Your continued 'digs' get in the way of the conversation.

My point remains... You were raised in Christianity, and augmented this belief system accordingly, to follow your logic and reason; which you stated no longer coincides with much of your family. Is it possible to do this with another religion as well? If the answer is yes, then how would you know your indoctrinated one just so happens to be the correct one? Does there exist an external and objective way to verify truth in the claims for which you believe?

Have you explored the 'evidence' with as little bias as possible? Or, did you venture in with an a priori belief?

Why would you even ask such a question? If I were to say, "I was able to lay aside any bias I had", I highly doubt you would buy such a thing, and I would not blame you. We all have bias. The most honest answer I can give would be, I am fully aware of my bias. However, I was faced with a situation in which I was forced to attempt to get to the truth of the matter, and I did not care which way the road lead. I can tell you this, if one truly understands Christianity, then I cannot imagine such a one, wanting to believe it.

Great. So is it then possible such believed claims are substantiated/validate by way of conformation bias, which stems from the aforementioned topic of indoctrination?

When I finally decided to read the Bible, about five years ago, I wanted to believe it.

Well then, I think you have just demonstrated one can have a bias toward what they would rather believe, but come to a different conclusion. In fact, I can point to a number of folks who were completely opposed to Christianity, who went on to study the facts, and evidence involved in order to disprove it, who came out of this study to be a believer. So what?

Well, the take away could be... What were these topics/categories which turned such a person from one conclusion to another? I have already mentioned a few, in the OP; for which you have agreed... Care to explore one of them -(if not already started above in a prior request)?

Okay. Does this mean you do not believe God gave Moses the 10 Commandments, or that God told Noah to build an Ark, or made any covenants with anyone, or other other other? Please elaborate?

Well, if you have read the Bible as you say, then you surely came across this passage,

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son

So then, as you can see, God spoke in the past in different ways, which would include Moses, Noah, the covenants, other, other, other.

So your take-away here, is that God used to speak to some, but that ended with Jesus. Thus, "Venom" must be mistaken, when he states the "Holy Spirit" gives him messages -- unless it is a direct regurgitation of an existing Bible verse?

Maybe I wasn't clear enough? "WLC admits, in two places, that "arguments and evidence" are not WHY he ultimately believes.". He tells us, point/blank, that the MAIN REASON he believes, is because (fill-in-the-blank). If you strip away all arguments and evidence, he still would believe. Thus, I would address him, like I'm now addressing "Venom".

I have already stated I do not agree with WLC on this point.

I'm completely aware that you do not agree with him. My point is that he was able to pare down to his main reason. Are you willing to explore one, as listed above -- (please ignore this specific question if you already answered above)?

So I ask you... How do we know the Bible is true?

I cannot say "I know the content of the Bible is true", but I can say, I am convinced it is true, with great certainty.

Based upon?

I disagree. I gave you a video clip, where arguably the most well renounced apologist gave his MAIN REASON, in a nutshell. If he can do it, I bet you can too.

Well then, you have it all figured out I guess? But, I can assure you that there is not one simple thing I can point to and say, "this is the main reason I believe". It seems to me there are those who are looking for simple answers, and I have none.

Not looking for a simple answer, but surely there is a (topic/category/bullet point) you have in mind? Again, ignore this question if we are already addressing above, or if you refuse to present one.

If I gave you a book, which states "some people rose from the dead", would that be <equal> to having 100 independent and unrelated people videoing this event on their cell phones? Sure, you would still need to inquire more, but this might be a good start... But if you merely stopped at the book claim, maybe not so much???

My friend, I do not think they had cell phones back in the day. What they did have, they used. In fact, the author of the first letter to Theophilus had this to say,

You missed the point. A Book is not extraordinary evidence, is it?

Legend, lore, oral tradition, no real eyewitnesses to account for such an event, the church, etc...

So, in your mind the things above can explain the content of the NT, and it does not include the extraordinary? You may want to rethink that?

????? Claiming it is legend, oral tradition, lacks eyewitnesses, etc, does not qualify as extraordinary. But a man rising from the dead seems to be... I'm sorry, but you are clearly shifting the burden. I know it chops your hide for me to say this...

The Book is the claim. The Book is also virtually the only evidence. Is 'Book' a means of extraordinary evidence for a claim to a man rising from the grave (for example)?

If you wish to flesh out any of the topics I presented, (i.e.) how legend works, how oral tradition works, how the church canonized the Gospels, how we have no direct eyewitness accounts, etc, please select one.

The resurrection is the claim to your foundation. Let's start here, unless you wish to give me another reason above, as to why you are a Christian?

[brunumb]

So then, as you can see, this author tells his audience at the time, these reports were not based upon, "fables". Rather, the author claims to have been an eyewitness, who was there with Jesus at the time. Of course the author could have been lying, but you would think the original audience would have been able to know if the author would have been alive at the time to actually make such a claim.

Who is this author and why don't you refer to him by name? If you don't know his identity or credentials then how can you be so sure his alleged audience knew any better?

[POI]

Who is this author and why don't you refer to him by name? If you don't know his identity or credentials then how can you be so sure his alleged audience knew any better?

I've been touching on this with "Venom". If we do not know who the author(s) even were, which we likely don't; then all one can do is let the speculations run wild. A defiance in physics would seem to be the last and 'worst' option to consider, and not the 'best'.

However and regardless, mathematically and naturally, it's highly unlikely these Gospel authors were anywhere near Jesus themselves. As I told "Venom", how old was "Mark" when Jesus was killed? Then add 40+ years, and this places him at what age - (when the typical life expectancy was 35)? And it gets worse, as you start to venture to the other three Gospels.

But yea, like you stated above, if the author does not identify themselves, then we really have no starting point to investigate anyways. Why? Because the entire claim hinges and rests upon 'eyewitnesses'. Which we already know we do not have, by mere definition.

And nearly half the NT is said to be authored by Paul, (who never met Jesus either BTW). At least in a 'natural' kinda way...