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?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]
this debate has been ragging for thousands of years now.

Why do you think this debate continues to be unresolved for thousands of years? Or, is it in fact resolved, and one side of the (god v. likely no god) conclusion is merely in denial of their own 'reality'?

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".

While this may be true in most cases, it is simply a false statement. With this being the case, I would like to make a couple of points here. First, there are a number of folks I could point to, who were absolute unbelievers, who went on to examine the facts, and evidence involved, (logical argumentation) and came away from this being convinced believers. Next, this very site is filled with folks who claimed to have been sincerely convinced believers at one time, who now are unbelievers. Are you suggesting that it would not have been "logical argumentation" which changed their mind?

Maybe I should have worded my OP better? I'm aware people change their positions all the time. I myself used to be a believer. My point here, is that it didn't happen during a debate with an atheist/agnostic

Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.

You are correct, and I will not attempt to deny this being the case. My question however would be, what would this have to do with the truth of the matter?

My point here would be that if you look at a "world religion map", you will notice that god beliefs look to be somewhat neatly divided by region.

Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination.

Again, I would have to agree this would be true. However, if I were to "indoctrinate" my children to believe the Sun to be stationary, and when they ask questions I simply respond by saying, "do not ask questions, simply believe as I say", how would this cause what they believe concerning the Sun to be any less true?

To elaborate here, some are indoctrinated, and never really later examine the claim on their own accord -- without bias. I myself was once a product of both geography and indoctrination. But I think I see what you might be driving at...? What evidence(s) actually validates a god claim/belief?

It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.

What sort of evidence would there be, which would suggest the information we have in the NT would be false?

Depends on which specific claim? I would say the 'grand-daddy claim' of them all, the resurrection, is unfalsifiable. How about you?

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.

Again, this may in fact be true. However, while I do not believe any of them have experienced God speaking to them, how would this have any impact upon Christianity being true, or false?

I believe I see where you continue to go here.... ("My truth" v. actual truth)... Is one's belief justified? If so, how do you know?

But I must ask, why exactly do you not believe that the Holy Spirit or 'god' speaks to "Venom"? -- (This question is based upon the notion that you have been following my exchange with him). If not, then Venom claims (He) speaks to Venom.

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?

My friend, this site is filled with folks who claim to have been convinced believers at one time, who go on to claim that they did not use "logic and reason" to become a believer, who go on to claim that it was in fact, the use of "logic and reason" which lead them to reject what they once believed.

I agree with what you are saying... Sometimes a video is required to drive a point. Please simply look at portion (01:30 to 02:20). It's a video I've referenced before, in other threads. If I truly felt some deity was communicating with me, I would likely too rationalize all the counterpoints of (arguments and evidence) which did not align with my belief that YHWH truly speaks to me in some capacity

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe?

I would suggest, if one could give "the MAIN reason" they believe, (as if there would be one main reason) then more than likely it could be one of the reasons you list above. However, if one has actually examined what they believe, and why they believe as they do, then I cannot imagine they could simply have a "MAIN reason" but would rather have a chain of reason, which would be difficult type out in this type of format. Whether believer, or unbeliever, hopefully we have all put a lot of time and effort into what we believe, and why we believe as we do concerning these things? With this being the case, I cannot imagine one being able to list a single "MAIN reason". There are no easy answers here, and to believe that there is, seems to demonstrate a, simple mind.

However, although I cannot possibly give any sort of "MAIN reason" I believe, I can give you one of the lesser reasons I continue to believe as I do, and I will do this as we move on, answering your next two questions together.

I'm asking what you think is the MAIN reason? If that MAIN reason was later debunked, to your own personal satisfaction, would this make you no longer a god believer? I'm exploring this with "Venom" right now... He is placing much emphasis on the "Kalam". However, I have my doubts that the "Kalam" is why he 'knows' God exists? We shall see?

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?

Of course my "current belief is open for actual debate" which is the reason I am here on this site. In other words, I have never been here in order to attempt to convince others to believe as I do. Rather, I have been here in order to determine if the arguments of those opposed could cause me to doubt what it is I believe concerning these things. As it turns out, after years, and years on this site, the arguments of those opposed, have actually strengthened what it is I believe, and this post here would be an example of this.

Okay? I'm note sure I follow you here?

Because you see, I do not believe you have any reason to doubt the content of the NT. If you do, it cannot possibly have anything to do with what you have listed above, because as I have demonstrated, none of these things would have a thing in the world to do with Christianity being true, or false. Therefore, it is these sort of post which lead me to believe there is really no reason to doubt.

1. How many times does the NT speak about 'faith'?

2. Is the claim for the resurrection of Jesus falsifiable?

[POI]

Many claimed 'gods' existed, and are even claimed to exist now. Many even believe they are god(s). I don't think I would accuse them of being liars. Just like I do not doubt the conviction of others who make claims about their god(s).

Anyone can claim anything.

The point is; if the aim is to decide whether a specific claim has merit, then you have to dig in to the evidence for/against the claim...and if the evidence weighs heavier on the "for" side, then you can conclude that "this claim is more likely than not to be true".

And that is what I gather from the argument for the Resurrection of Jesus.

But so far, you've expressed that you would have to assume they are lying if one should not believe the claim(s)? Does this mean that every other "god claim", which does not speak about Jesus/YHWH, is ultimately a lie? I don't think so...

What specific point(s) of evidence verify that "Jesus rose from the dead"?

Jesus' followers believed that they saw him post-mortem, alive and doing fine...and the best explanation for the origins of their beliefs that they saw him, is because they actually saw him.

That is it, in a nut shell. Now again, there is much more to it than that but that is the gist of things.

Well, unfortunately, all you have to substantiate the claims of all these witnesses is a collection of anonymous writings, written decades or centuries later, attesting to such claims. Which, at best, these authors obtained their source information from circulating oral tradition. And at worst, were instructed what to write by the ''church", because this is what the 'church' believes.

I also find it quite peculiar that Jesus expects for the human population to accept these highly 'important' claims, based upon antiquity?

So I ask you, do we have a way to verify that many people actually saw a post-mortem Jesus, or, do we merely trust or have faith that the writings of the unknown/unverified authors are validated?

And why is it important to note that the Gospels were anonymous? Well, because we do not know of the motivations for writing them? And this is even if you completely excludethat they were just lying...

The use of 'language' in premise 2 would need to be vetted out... This is why I use the word 'universe' in quotes. It might be prudent to also put quotes around 'began to exist'. The use of language is key.

It is what it is.

Um, okay?

Well, you are jumping ahead of yourself here... We know the 'universe' or 'universes' exist(s). Do we know God(s) exist(s)?

Again, the universe began to exist. If the universe is all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM)...then whatever caused STEM to begin to exist cannot itself be a product of STEM, as it is what created STEM in the first place.

So, you can already negate any physical cause of the universe...then it logically follows that there must have been a causal agent outside of STEM that isn't itself dependent upon STEM for its existence.

And that is where the "G" word comes into play. I know you may not like where things go from there, but hey.

Are you even reading my responses? What do you mean by 'universe'? What do you mean by 'begins to exist'?

Simply asserting ex nihilo, does not then validate ex nihilo. It's quite possible ex materia is all there is...? And if not, for starters, where did 'God" dwell before He decided to create it? Or more importantly, what the heck is "nothing"? Again, we know material exists. We also know material changes form. Do we know of a 'transcendent realm' which exists outside of time/space/material/other, or could it merely be fallacious reasoning which proposes this assertion?

The 'Kalam' uses vague terms to push an apologetics argument. That's the way I see it. And to boot, even if I were to somehow get you to reconcile my position, that the 'Kalam' is irrelevant to your belief, your belief would likely not waiver regardless.

So, do we need to invest even more time into an apologetics argument, which likely does not affirm your beliefs anyways?

We know the "universe" exists. By "universe", I mean the one we observe now, and are still continuing to discovery. We currently have absolutely no clue what happened prior to 'plank time.' Many cosmologists investigate this question extensively. But to instead throw your hands up in the air, and shout "God", seems intellectually lazy (to be honest). Just think if we used the 'god did it' conclusion for many other prior unknowns in the past

It's likely we still have more to discover, verses what we already have discovered. But thus far, 'science' has yet to conclude anything about 'god doing any of it'?

But you see, the 'Kalam' can just as easily argue for ex materia. Hence, the "Kalam" may not even be relevant to your case. But even if it was relevant, and somehow 'proves' 'ex nihilo', the Kalam may merely demonstrate deism, and not theism.

Deism and theism is pretty much the same thing...although depending on the context there can be a distinction.

But yeah, you touched on a good point, and I am of the opinion that everyone should at the very least be a deist....as no rational human being can logically think that we are here become of some blind, random process.

Well, if material always existed, then it would seem quite irrational to be a god believer, right? But I do not make any assertions, one way or another. I'm holding out for more information. Sure, I may never get the answer, but this does not mean I should shoehorn 'god' in there. But you apparently do? So, why do we know God exists?

Inherent problems exist with both infinite regress, as well as first cause On the surface, from a philosophical standpoint, one could argue that you are trading one fallacy for another (i.e.)

first cause = special pleading and/or argument from ignorance
infinite regress = infinite question begging

But it's likely that one of the two turns out not to be fallacious. However, neither has been 'demonstrated' in their resolve.

Please enlighten me as to why the first cause hypothesis is special pleading, and/or arguing from ignorance...especially considering the fact that I've dedicated an entire thread to the first cause case (while also arguing against infinite regression).

Well, does God have a God? Why can't He?

And in regards to the argument from ignorance fallacy, I trust you read what I wrote above?

Okay, so the Christians who perpetually disagree with discipline, by way of beating their children, is instead surely getting their messages/intuitions from 'evil'?.?.?.?.?

First off, there is a difference between "beating" your children, and "abusing" your children. Sounds like you are conflating the two, which is a crying shame.

No, it sounds like you do not really want to address the issue presented.

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

Kool, so we are right back to square one. You say it, and a believer of another god also says it? Who do I believe, if any, and why?

You examine all religions (whichever ones you decide), and follow your heart. Whichever one pulls at your heartstrings the most, then that is the one to believe and follow.

So "the correct belief system" is validated by emotion???

Well, if it's important to you, as a believer, your conclusion that "yours is right and theirs is wrong" is merely based upon a hunch?

Obviously, I was being facetious when I said that. It is much more than a hunch.

Kool

The more we explore, the less the 'Kalam' even seems relevant to your core belief at all? Are you now saying the 'teleological argument' is more-so why you fundamentally believe?

Reading comprehension is important.

My beloved Kalam was negated and taken out of the equation, according to the hypothetical that YOU gave. So upon its negation, I appealed to what you correctly described as the teleological argument...an argument that I definitely rock with, but it isn't necessarily the one that I appeal to as I conduct my apologetics.

If I thought the "Kalam" was the reason you actually believe, I would have no problem pocking holes within it. But, I do not think the "Kalam" is much relevant to your beliefs. So, is the "teleological argument" actually one of the reasons you are a God believer? I doubt this either... So what is it exactly?

If so, did you happen to follow the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial of 2007?

"If so" is the beginning of a question that piggybacked off of a false premise (that the kalam is less relevant to my core belief). Therefore, the question is irrelevant.

Well, you were the one who brought up this new "apologetics argument", not me If this argument IS the reason you believe, I would like to explore. But you now say it is not, so why invest any time here either?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This topic is probably a good one for my first post.

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...
The main reason I believe is that I reached a point where I was convinced that the claims of Jesus "measure up" to truth. Ultimately, I concluded that I'd be willing to bet my eternity that Jesus was not a liar. This resulted from both general and special revelation interacting with my heart, soul, and mind over many years.

When you say "general and special revelation interacting with my heart, soul, and mind", can you please elaborate?

2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
I believe that my faith in God has been refined and strengthened through my life journey to the point where it is not open to debate. My theology approach can now be characterized as "faith seeking additional understanding."

Is it possible you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect in some capacity?

I myself am open to belief in a God/gods again, if either God decides to reveal Himself to me (or) if such evidence was to present as such. As of the present moment, I'm on the side of 'likely not'. But again, this can change...

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?
I am a part-time graduate student in seminary and was looking for additional ways to engage in respectful discourse about God and sharpen my ability to defend my faith.

Interesting, when people ask questions about the topics of {slavery, child abuse, misogyny, rape, and coercion; as well as seemingly misguided information about how the 'universe' evolved}, as presented in the Bible, what exactly do you tell them?

[JMarshall]

[Replying to POI in post #83]

Thank you for your reply. Here are my responses (I apologize that I am a forum "newbie," so I have not learned the reply formatting functions yet).

When you say "general and special revelation interacting with my heart, soul, and mind", can you please elaborate?

First, I think one has to genuinely and honestly seek truth. I believe that many who reject God were never open to the possibility that God exists and that the claims of the Bible may be true. Ultimately, I had to consider all the evidence related to the world and universe and the claims of Scripture and make a judgment on whether the evidence was convincing or not. I assessed the evidence through the lens of science and logic and how these sources of revelation (words of Scripture, the beauty of creation, the magnificence of the universe, etc.) resonated with my core being, thoughts, feelings, and emotions. I wrestled with this holistically for years before finally reaching a point where I not only believed intellectually but deep within my heart and soul. I should state that I believe that the Holy Spirit had a critical role in this process which I can elaborate on another time.

Is it possible you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect in some capacity? I myself am open to belief in a God/gods again, if either God decides to reveal Himself to me (or) if such evidence was to present as such. As of the present moment, I'm on the side of 'likely not'. But again, this can change...

I had to look up, "Dunning-Kruger Effect." I don't believe that I suffer from this effect because, based on my understanding of the definition, this relates to a psychological bias of overestimating my ability in something. My faith has nothing to do with ability or perception of my ability. It is based on my personal experience of God's faithfulness meeting my faith countless times during my life (especially during some of the valleys). The following is not a perfect example, but let's say you placed trust in a person during a period of your life. If that person were not consistent in coming through for you (meeting your faith with faithfulness), you would eventually lose faith in that person. The opposite is also true. I'm sure you have at least one friend or family member you have trusted over the years, and they have always come through for you. You would put your faith in that person. I can't imagine anything that would shake the faith that I have gained through over 50 years of personal experience. One could say confirmation bias might be a factor, but there were challenging periods in my life where I was not predisposed to putting faith in anything other than myself. I am encouraged that you are still open to belief.

Interesting, when people ask questions about the topics of {slavery, child abuse, misogyny, rape, and coercion; as well as seemingly misguided information about how the 'universe' evolved}, as presented in the Bible, what exactly do you tell them?

I first acknowledge that these are all excellent questions. Concerning some of the evil topics you mentioned, I wish I could ask God today why He allows it. However, I am grateful that God did not create robots who don't have free will. He created humankind in His image and granted us free will. Because sin entered His creation, we live in a broken world that was not God's original design. Therefore, some human beings make terrible (and evil) decisions. But, God (in His sovereignty) has a solid track record of working man's evil actions into his plan and purpose. The story of Joseph is a good example. I view Christ's crucifixion as probably the best example where God was able to take the evilest act in human history (the killing of His innocent son) and turn it into the best thing that ever happened in human history (atonement for all the sins of humankind). Regarding how the universe evolved, I believe it takes more faith to believe the non-Biblical account than the Biblical account.

[POI]

First, I think one has to genuinely and honestly seek truth. I believe that many who reject God were never open to the possibility that God exists and that the claims of the Bible may be true.

I was a Christian for 3 decades. I believed. Now I do not. Are you insinuating I was never truly a believer or never gave it a fair shake?

I should state that I believe that the Holy Spirit had a critical role in this process which I can elaborate on another time. My faith has nothing to do with ability or perception of my ability. It is based on my personal experience of God's faithfulness meeting my faith countless times during my life (especially during some of the valleys).

The following is not a perfect example, but let's say you placed trust in a person during a period of your life. If that person were not consistent in coming through for you (meeting your faith with faithfulness), you would eventually lose faith in that person. The opposite is also true. I'm sure you have at least one friend or family member you have trusted over the years, and they have always come through for you. You would put your faith in that person. I can't imagine anything that would shake the faith that I have gained through over 50 years of personal experience. One could say confirmation bias might be a factor, but there were challenging periods in my life where I was not predisposed to putting faith in anything other than myself. I am encouraged that you are still open to belief.

How do you not only know there exists a 'Holy Spirit', but that this "Holy Spirit" also communicates with you?

It's easy to accept the hits, and ignore the misses. When things go your way, 'God' gets the glory. When things don't,"God works in mysterious ways or God has a differing plan for you". You know, that 'ol chestnut...

I prayed to this perceived God for decades and eventually came to the conclusion that I am/was most likely just talking to myself, in 'prayer.' Did things still sometimes go my way, as I prayed? Sure. But I found that in the act of prayer, the chances of 'success' did not really increase.

Do you believe in intercessory/petitionary prayer(s)? Assuming you do, as you state He "consistently comes through for you", pray to have Him contact me in a way for which I can no longer deny His mere existence. If you can, then not only will you demonstrate that your prayers are consistently answered, but you will have then immediately brought another to Christ (i.e.) me.

But guess what? I've asked this of countless Christians, whom make similar claims as you, and here I still am, an unbeliever

Interesting, when people ask questions about the topics of {slavery, child abuse, misogyny, rape, and coercion; as well as seemingly misguided information about how the 'universe' evolved}, as presented in the Bible, what exactly do you tell them?

I first acknowledge that these are all excellent questions. Concerning some of the evil topics you mentioned, I wish I could ask God today why He allows it. However, I am grateful that God did not create robots who don't have free will. He created humankind in His image and granted us free will. Because sin entered His creation, we live in a broken world that was not God's original design. Therefore, some human beings make terrible (and evil) decisions. But, God (in His sovereignty) has a solid track record of working man's evil actions into his plan and purpose. The story of Joseph is a good example. I view Christ's crucifixion as probably the best example where God was able to take the evilest act in human history (the killing of His innocent son) and turn it into the best thing that ever happened in human history (atonement for all the sins of humankind). Regarding how the universe evolved, I believe it takes more faith to believe the non-Biblical account than the Biblical account.

Please allow me to restate my inquiry. I feel we might be speaking passed one another...

You seem to either be an apologist, or an aspiring apologist. When reading the Bible, the author(s) clearly condone slavery, child abuse, misogyny, rape, coercion, and also seems to tell of events that likely objectively never happened. So when you run across these topics, do you ignore them, rationalize them, or other?

[We_Are_VENOM]

But so far, you've expressed that you would have to assume they are lying if one should not believe the claim(s)?

People don't believe things that they know to be a lie. People believe things that they think are the truth.

Does this mean that every other "god claim", which does not speak about Jesus/YHWH, is ultimately a lie? I don't think so...

Every other "god claim" may very well be a lie, however, those that believe in these claims are not lying.

If they knew that it was a lie, then they wouldn't believe it.

People don't believe things that they KNOW is a lie. The problem is; they don't know that it is a lie.

Well, unfortunately, all you have to substantiate the claims of all these witnesses is a collection of anonymous writings

Well, fortunately, we have a pretty good idea of who wrote what.

, written decades

Written within the lifetime of the apostles or friends of the apostles.

or centuries later, attesting to such claims.

No NT writing can be said to have been written centuries later.

Which, at best, these authors obtained their source information from circulating oral tradition. And at worst, were instructed what to write by the ''church", because this is what the 'church' believes.

False.

I also find it quite peculiar that Jesus expects for the human population to accept these highly 'important' claims, based upon antiquity?

Billions of Christians throughout the centuries have already accepted these highly 'important' claims. You are late to the party.

So I ask you, do we have a way to verify that many people actually saw a post-mortem Jesus, or, do we merely trust or have faith that the writings of the unknown/unverified authors are validated?

Do we have a way to verify that Hannibal rode war elephants to battle or that Julius Caesar was stabbed?

And why is it important to note that the Gospels were anonymous? Well, because we do not know of the motivations for writing them? And this is even if you completely excludethat they were just lying...

Tell ya what, create a thread with this topic as the subject, and I will see you there.

Are you even reading my responses?

What do you mean by 'universe'?

I think the question is, are you reading MY posts? You dare to ask what do I mean by universe, when I clearly stated that the universe is all STEM (SPACE, TIME, ENERGY, AND MATTER).

That point was made very clear, and to ask the question goes to show that someone is being selective in what he/she reads.

What do you mean by 'begins to exist'?

To go from a state of nonexistence, to existence. Pretty simple, is it not?

It's quite possible ex materia is all there is...?

It is quite imPOSSIBLE that ex materia is all there is.

If the concept of ex materia is drowning in the ocean, the infinite regression problem is the brick that is tied to its ankles.

And if not, for starters, where did 'God" dwell before He decided to create it?

I don't know...but my ignorance in one place doesn't negate my knowledge in other places...and one of those places is my knowledge that infinite regression is impossible.

Or more importantly, what the heck is "nothing"? Again, we know material exists. We also know material changes form.

That is the point; matter couldn't have been changing forms all the way from past eternity.

Do we know of a 'transcendent realm' which exists outside of time/space/material/other, or could it merely be fallacious reasoning which proposes this assertion?

The former.

The 'Kalam' uses vague terms to push an apologetics argument. That's the way I see it.

Actually, it doesn't. There are only two premises...and each premise is expanded/expounded upon once you dig into the argument.

Anyone who has ever watched a William Lane Craig debate knows this.

And to boot, even if I were to somehow get you to reconcile my position, that the 'Kalam' is irrelevant to your belief, your belief would likely not waiver regardless.

My theistic beliefs goes beyond just the Kalam, even though it is my go-to argument in apologetics based on the support it has from science and philosophy.

So, do we need to invest even more time into an apologetics argument, which likely does not affirm your beliefs anyways?

Don't know how you draw that conclusion, but hey.

We know the "universe" exists. By "universe", I mean the one we observe now, and are still continuing to discovery. We currently have absolutely no clue what happened prior to 'plank time.'

The argument against infinite regression is independent of what happened prior to 'plank time'.

Many cosmologists investigate this question extensively.

The argument against infinite regression doesn't care what cosmologists say, think, or investigate.

But to instead throw your hands up in the air, and shout "God", seems intellectually lazy (to be honest).

Call it what you want. Science is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge and it has limitations...and it has reached its limitations when it comes to the explanatory power to explain the origins of STEM.

And where science stops, theology begins.

Well actually, theology begins even before science, but you see my point.

Just think if we used the 'god did it' conclusion for many other prior unknowns in the past

Works for me.

Well, if material always existed, then it would seem quite irrational to be a god believer, right? But I do not make any assertions, one way or another. I'm holding out for more information. Sure, I may never get the answer, but this does not mean I should shoehorn 'god' in there. But you apparently do? So, why do we know God exists?

Already answered this question.

Well, does God have a God? Why can't He?

Elementary school question that I refuse to engage.

And in regards to the argument from ignorance fallacy, I trust you read what I wrote above?

I did, which is why my question remains.

No, it sounds like you do not really want to address the issue presented.

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

Meaningless, irrelevant, red herring of a question.

So "the correct belief system" is validated by emotion???

Go wherever the evidence takes you.

If I thought the "Kalam" was the reason you actually believe, I would have no problem pocking holes within it. But, I do not think the "Kalam" is much relevant to your beliefs. So, is the "teleological argument" actually one of the reasons you are a God believer? I doubt this either... So what is it exactly?

Anyways...like I said, the KCA is the main reason why I stand grounded in theism, and the argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus is why I stand grounded in Christian theism.

Well, you were the one who brought up this new "apologetics argument", not me If this argument IS the reason you believe, I would like to explore. But you now say it is not, so why invest any time here either?

A gaslighting technique that would make Bust Nak proud.

[alexxcJRO]

The fact of the matter is simple, those virtual particles you mention may not be uncaused. That is the point.

And I am delighted that you acknowledge the fact that the virtual processes may occur through deterministic processes...and as long as this is even possible, there is really no need to appeal to it...especially considering the other reasons I mentioned as to why it simply CANNOT be the case.

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.

“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.

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

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

There are only two options.

1. God did it.

2. Nature did it

Please be kind and enlighten me on a third option and I will gladly add it to the list.

Any option you give will fall under those two options, and I challenge you to find a third.

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?

So basically, "anything explanation, no matter how absurd/outrageous it is, is STILL better than the God hypothesis".

You have to postulate weird and unintuitively (your words, not mines) things just to negate the existence of God.

If that is the price of atheism, you can have at it

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

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

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?

This is a red herring. Please address my argument against infinite regress.

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.

I've already stated why STEM would all have to have originated simultaneously, and nothing you've said addresses that point.

The Kalam applies to the universe and EVERYTHING in it.

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?

Any time you speak of something that happened within time, you are subjecting whatever you speak of to the argument against infinite regress.

What you are postulating is an infinite causal chain which occurs within the universe, and this is simply impossible.

The universe itself cannot contain an infinite chain of events within it...as that would make the entire domain one big ball of absurdity.

It cannot happen.
Infinite regression; impossible.
Ok, so you provide 2 scientific articles from early 2015 which gives rise to the possibility of the universe existing forever.

First off..

1. The articles 7 years old, and they both say a whole LOT without saying anything AT ALL. What you should have provided is the most up-to-date info which gives the latest developments as to where things stand today.

Those scientific articles do the same thing over and over again...they provide readers with a future hope...saying these like "we may have found the missing link"...well, either we found it, or we didn't. Or, "cosmologists point to the possibility of the universe existing forever"...well, sure...maybe it is possible (for arguments sake), but is it probable? Big difference.

And in this case, from the first article, the first sentence reads "The universe may have existed forever." Well, did it exist forever, or has it not existed forever? Which one is it?

Typical cosmo-babble.

2. So again, you provide two articles from early 2015, eh? Well, I will provide one article from LATE 2015.

https://inference-review.com/article/th ... e-universe

This is an article penned by renowned physicist Alexander Vilenkin, who, along with three other physicist, formulated the BGV (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) theorem, which states that any universe which has been expanding at an AVERAGE Hubble rate greater than 0, MUST have had a beginning...and practically ALL viable cosmological models meets this simple criteria. This theorem applies to cyclic models, higher dimension models, and also quantum models.

And in the article, Vilenkin even states how cosmologists have been trying to avoid the theorem by creating competing models, but they simply won't work for one reason or another.

3. You still have the infinity problem, which is (as I keep stressing) independent of science.

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

Professor Sean Carroll explains the theories of Presentism and Eternalism:

So basically..

You: You are filling your gaps of knowledge with God!!! Gap filled.

Me: Well, what are you filling your gaps of knowledge with?

You: Science.

Me: Gap filled.

Nice job tap dancing around the infinite regression problem, though. I understand if you'd rather not deal with it. After all, it is very powerful, indeed.

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.

I burned my hand on a stove once. Based on this past events, I am making the choice to become more cautious when being around a stove from now on.

So therefore, a past event has determined my future choice(s).

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.

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

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.

Still don't get it.

Q: What?


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.
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.

[POI]

The problem is; they don't know that it is a lie.

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.):

- 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.

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

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

Well, unfortunately, all you have to substantiate the claims of all these witnesses is a collection of anonymous writings

Well, fortunately, we have a pretty good idea of who wrote what.

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

, written decades

Written within the lifetime of the apostles or friends of the apostles.

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

or centuries later, attesting to such claims.

No NT writing can be said to have been written centuries later.

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

Which, at best, these authors obtained their source information from circulating oral tradition. And at worst, were instructed what to write by the ''church", because this is what the 'church' believes.

False.

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

Historical consensus places 'Mark' at around 65-80AD. We do not have the original(s) to compare against what was written later. We also suspect there was more than one author for 'Mark', via Mark 16:9-20.

I also find it quite peculiar that Jesus expects for the human population to accept these highly 'important' claims, based upon antiquity?

Billions of Christians throughout the centuries have already accepted these highly 'important' claims. You are late to the party.

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

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?

Are you even reading my responses?

What do you mean by 'universe'?

I think the question is, are you reading MY posts? You dare to ask what do I mean by universe, when I clearly stated that the universe is all STEM (SPACE, TIME, ENERGY, AND MATTER).

That point was made very clear, and to ask the question goes to show that someone is being selective in what he/she reads.

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

What do you mean by 'begins to exist'?

To go from a state of nonexistence, to existence. Pretty simple, is it not?

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

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

And if not, for starters, where did 'God" dwell before He decided to create it?

I don't know...

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

If something, who created 'something'? You are then right back to infinite regress

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

Do we know of a 'transcendent realm' which exists outside of time/space/material/other, or could it merely be fallacious reasoning which proposes this assertion?

The former.

Fallacious and already explained....

And to boot, even if I were to somehow get you to reconcile my position, that the 'Kalam' is irrelevant to your belief, your belief would likely not waiver regardless.

My theistic beliefs goes beyond just the Kalam, even though it is my go-to argument in apologetics based on the support it has from science and philosophy.

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

But to instead throw your hands up in the air, and shout "God", seems intellectually lazy (to be honest).

Call it what you want. Science is not the end-all-be-all of knowledge and it has limitations...and it has reached its limitations when it comes to the explanatory power to explain the origins of STEM.

And where science stops, theology begins.

Well actually, theology begins even before science, but you see my point.

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.

Just think if we used the 'god did it' conclusion for many other prior unknowns in the past

Works for me.

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.

No, it sounds like you do not really want to address the issue presented.

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

Meaningless, irrelevant, red herring of a question.

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"?

So "the correct belief system" is validated by emotion???

Go wherever the evidence takes you.

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

Well, you were the one who brought up this new "apologetics argument", not me If this argument IS the reason you believe, I would like to explore. But you now say it is not, so why invest any time here either?

A gaslighting technique that would make Bust Nak proud.

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

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #81]

Why do you think this debate continues to be unresolved for thousands of years?

Maybe it is because neither side has been able to demonstrate their case? In other words, the Christian simply explains what it is they believe, along with the facts and evidence in support of what they believe, while the unbeliever explains what it is they believe, along with the facts, and evidence in support of what they believe concerning these things, with neither side being able to demonstrate what it is they believe, concerning the facts, and evidence we have?

Or, is it in fact resolved, and one side of the (god v. likely no god) conclusion is merely in denial of their own 'reality'?

This is not my position, as of yet?

Maybe I should have worded my OP better? I'm aware people change their positions all the time. I myself used to be a believer. My point here, is that it didn't happen during a debate with an atheist/agnostic

Right! Allow me to guess here, if you do not mind? You were a believer at one time, but you did not use the mind in order to become a believer? Once you began to use your mind, it was at the use of the mind which caused you to reject what you were once convinced was true? Imagine my surprise!

Okay, if it was not, "during a debate with an atheist/agnostic" would it have involved the use of "logic and reason" which you did not use in order to become a believer?

My point here would be that if you look at a "world religion map", you will notice that god beliefs look to be somewhat neatly divided by region.

I understand what you are saying. My question is, what would this have to do with the Christian claims being false? I don't get the point?

To elaborate here, some are indoctrinated, and never really later examine the claim on their own accord -- without bias.

Correct! But, I cannot see how this would have anything to do with what they happen to claim to believe, being true, or false?

I myself was once a product of both geography and indoctrination.

And this somehow demonstrates that what you were indoctrinated to believe is false?

But I think I see what you might be driving at...? What evidence(s) actually validates a god claim/belief?

Exactly! In other words, it does not matter your geography, your indoctrination, or what you may have been convinced of without the use of the mind. None of these things have a thing in the world to so with what the truth may be.

Depends on which specific claim? I would say the 'grand-daddy claim' of them all, the resurrection, is unfalsifiable. How about you?

Again, a claim being "unfalsifiable" would have nothing to do with whether the claim would be true, or false.

But I must ask, why exactly do you not believe that the Holy Spirit or 'god' speaks to "Venom"? -- (This question is based upon the notion that you have been following my exchange with him). If not, then Venom claims (He) speaks to Venom.

I have not read any of your other exchanges. I am simply saying I do not believe anyone hears from God, outside of the ordained means He has supplied, which would not include God communicating with someone privately.

I agree with what you are saying... Sometimes a video is required to drive a point. Please simply look at portion (01:30 to 02:20). It's a video I've referenced before, in other threads. If I truly felt some deity was communicating with me, I would likely too rationalize all the counterpoints of (arguments and evidence) which did not align with my belief that YHWH truly speaks to me in some capacity

I have watched this video in the past, and I have a couple of comments. First, Craig has been debating for many years now, and many Atheists agree that he has won most of the debates he has had. Allow me to assure you that these Atheists would in no way agree to this, if Craig were to simply appeal to the witness of the Holy Spirit inside of him. Rather, they understand that Craig had a very good handle on the facts, and evidence. Of course there are those who argue that Craig uses under handed tactics but that is beside the point, and I am not willing to debate such a thing. I am simply pointing out that, although I do not agree with Craig on this point, his debates are based upon the facts, and evidence, and no matter one's opinion of Craig, he has been extremely successful.

More importantly though is the question as to what in the world would Craig's opinion have to do with whether there would be reasons to support the Christian claims? If Craig, simply walked around claiming to believe in God, simply based upon the inner witness of the Spirit, what would this have to do with anything at all, as far as the Christian claims?

I'm asking what you think is the MAIN reason? If that MAIN reason was later debunked, to your own personal satisfaction, would this make you no longer a god believer?

Yes, I would go with the facts, and evidence. I put no thrust in emotions!

1. How many times does the NT speak about 'faith'?

Allow me to attempt to explain faith to you. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in real time, and space, in history. I do not need faith in order to believe Jesus had a following of folks. I do not need faith in order to believe this same Jesus got himself in trouble with the authorities, and was crucified, dead, and buried. I do not even need faith in order to believe this same Jesus was raised from the dead. The reason I do not need faith in order to believe these things, is because there are facts, and evidence to support these things, and I can look at, study, analyze, weigh, etc. the facts, and evidence. Therefore, my belief in these things is not based upon faith, but rather upon the facts, and evidence.

What I would need faith in order to believe, is that the events above atone for my sin. Because you see, I cannot look at, study, analyze, feel, or weigh forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence for the rest.

2. Is the claim for the resurrection of Jesus falsifiable?

What sort of evidence would this be against the Christian claims? This has been my whole point, and it is very distressing! In other words, you seem to have no reason to doubt the Christian claims?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #81]

Why do you think this debate continues to be unresolved for thousands of years?

Maybe it is because neither side has been able to demonstrate their case? In other words, the Christian simply explains what it is they believe, along with the facts and evidence in support of what they believe, while the unbeliever explains what it is they believe, along with the facts, and evidence in support of what they believe concerning these things, with neither side being able to demonstrate what it is they believe, concerning the facts, and evidence we have?

Well, the burden of proof lies with the side who makes/asserts a positive claim. For the most part, the 'atheist' does not state 'god does not exist'. 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.

Thus, I ask you now... Are you asserting that God exists? Or, are you less than 100% sure as well? Are you making a positive claim? If so, then the burden is upon your shoulders in this perpetual 'great debate.' And if you are less than 100% certain, why would that be?

Maybe I should have worded my OP better? I'm aware people change their positions all the time. I myself used to be a believer. My point here, is that it didn't happen during a debate with an atheist/agnostic

Right! Allow me to guess here, if you do not mind? You were a believer at one time, but you did not use the mind in order to become a believer? Once you began to use your mind, it was at the use of the mind which caused you to reject what you were once convinced was true? Imagine my surprise!

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

Okay, if it was not, "during a debate with an atheist/agnostic" would it have involved the use of "logic and reason" which you did not use in order to become a believer?

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 point here would be that if you look at a "world religion map", you will notice that god beliefs look to be somewhat neatly divided by region.

I understand what you are saying. My question is, what would this have to do with the Christian claims being false? I don't get the point?

Well, many do not understand this point. You likely already do. However, many believe because of the influence of their surroundings. Maybe this is not you in any way?

The point demonstrated is that belief is often neatly segregated by geography. Is it a coincidence that you happen to have been raised into the right belief? This is a take-away question which can be asked....

And sure, even a broken clock is right twice a day. There's a chance one of these neatly packaged regions might happen to be 'correct' in their 'god' beliefs.

To elaborate here, some are indoctrinated, and never really later examine the claim on their own accord -- without bias.

Correct! But, I cannot see how this would have anything to do with what they happen to claim to believe, being true, or false?

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.

But I think I see what you might be driving at...? What evidence(s) actually validates a god claim/belief?

Exactly! In other words, it does not matter your geography, your indoctrination, or what you may have been convinced of without the use of the mind. None of these things have a thing in the world to so with what the truth may be.

The question is, do you make truth claims? And if so, is Jesus/YHWH a truth claim? Or is it instead your conclusion alone, not grounded in truth?

Is there a way to make ANY truth claim? I would say not.... One can just cry out "solipsism". Can any amount of evidence demonstrate a truth?

Or, is it just my opinion v. yours?

Depends on which specific claim? I would say the 'grand-daddy claim' of them all, the resurrection, is unfalsifiable. How about you?

Again, a claim being "unfalsifiable" would have nothing to do with whether the claim would be true, or false.

Well, aside from what I just said above, let's assume (evidence leads to some truths)...? I would say a resurrection claim may still not qualify.?.? How about you? How might one know if the "resurrection claim" is true?

But I must ask, why exactly do you not believe that the Holy Spirit or 'god' speaks to "Venom"? -- (This question is based upon the notion that you have been following my exchange with him). If not, then Venom claims (He) speaks to Venom.

I have not read any of your other exchanges. I am simply saying I do not believe anyone hears from God, outside of the ordained means He has supplied, which would not include God communicating with someone privately.

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

But yea, "Venom" claims the "Holy Spirit" speaks to him, in some capacity. If you both read from the same book of 'truths', then why do you two disagree here? Is he mistaken, or you? And how do you know the actual truth?

I agree with what you are saying... Sometimes a video is required to drive a point. Please simply look at portion (01:30 to 02:20). It's a video I've referenced before, in other threads. If I truly felt some deity was communicating with me, I would likely too rationalize all the counterpoints of (arguments and evidence) which did not align with my belief that YHWH truly speaks to me in some capacity

I have watched this video in the past, and I have a couple of comments. First, Craig has been debating for many years now, and many Atheists agree that he has won most of the debates he has had. Allow me to assure you that these Atheists would in no way agree to this, if Craig were to simply appeal to the witness of the Holy Spirit inside of him. Rather, they understand that Craig had a very good handle on the facts, and evidence. Of course there are those who argue that Craig uses under handed tactics but that is beside the point, and I am not willing to debate such a thing. I am simply pointing out that, although I do not agree with Craig on this point, his debates are based upon the facts, and evidence, and no matter one's opinion of Craig, he has been extremely successful.

As you have alluded to prior, it does not matter how many 'atheists' disagree or agree. It only matters what is true. 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?

More importantly though is the question as to what in the world would Craig's opinion have to do with whether there would be reasons to support the Christian claims? If Craig, simply walked around claiming to believe in God, simply based upon the inner witness of the Spirit, what would this have to do with anything at all, as far as the Christian claims?

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 am pressing 'Venom', but he now wants no part in it; as I have asked him the same question three times now.

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

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

I'm asking what you think is the MAIN reason? If that MAIN reason was later debunked, to your own personal satisfaction, would this make you no longer a god believer?

Yes, I would go with the facts, and evidence. I put no thrust in emotions!

Noted.

1. How many times does the NT speak about 'faith'?

Allow me to attempt to explain faith to you. I do not need faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in real time, and space, in history. I do not need faith in order to believe Jesus had a following of folks. I do not need faith in order to believe this same Jesus got himself in trouble with the authorities, and was crucified, dead, and buried. I do not even need faith in order to believe this same Jesus was raised from the dead. The reason I do not need faith in order to believe these things, is because there are facts, and evidence to support these things, and I can look at, study, analyze, weigh, etc. the facts, and evidence. Therefore, my belief in these things is not based upon faith, but rather upon the facts, and evidence.

What I would need faith in order to believe, is that the events above atone for my sin. Because you see, I cannot look at, study, analyze, feel, or weigh forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have facts, and evidence for the rest.

Would you agree 'extraordinary claimed need extraordinary evidence'? Then please reference the part in red.

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?

2. Is the claim for the resurrection of Jesus falsifiable?

What sort of evidence would this be against the Christian claims? This has been my whole point, and it is very distressing! In other words, you seem to have no reason to doubt the Christian claims?

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