Entityism vs. Christianity

[Justin108]

Disclaimer: Entityism is not a current existing religion. Entityism is a hypothetical religion used only within the scope of this debate.

Entityism is the belief that there is an intelligent creator (the Entity) that created the universe. It is the first cause and the reason that the universe exists. Entityism makes no further assumptions.

To clarify, the main difference between Christianity and Entityism is the fact that Entityism makes no assumptions about the nature of this entity other than that which is logically necessary for this being. Contrast this to Christianity which continues to assume that God is male, wrathful, jealous, desires worship, communicated with Abraham and Moses, instructed men to cut off their foreskins, instructed the Jews to kill homosexuals, sent his son Jesus to die for our sins, etc. Entityism is based solely on the belief that the universe cannot exist without intelligent design and that a first cause is needed.

Entityism is not to be confused with Deism, however, as Deism makes the added assumption that god does not interact with man. Entityism, however, makes no assumptions either way. Perhaps the Entity has interacted with intelligent life in the past? Perhaps it will do so in the future? Since there is no evidence either way, Entityism makes no assumptions on the matter.

What rational justification would there be in believing Christianity over Entityism? What rational argument can a Christian present to an Entityist to convince the Entityist that Christianity is true?

[Justin108]

"Intervention in history" puts the Jewish/Christian God into the historical sphere; as historical documents claim he has acted in history. Thus we can examine those documents.

Is there enough historical evidence to conclude that the Jewish/Christian god exists?

Entityism provides no documents (or none that your OP presupposes). Hence, we have nothing to examine against historical criteria.

That's because Entityism doesn't use historic evidence to form its conclusion. Entityism uses various philosophical arguments such as the Teleological Argument and the First-Cause Argument.

Entityism requires absolute blind faith

No, Entityism requires belief in the conclusions of various philosophical arguments. One might be able to criticize Entityism for flawed logic if one disagrees with the philosophical conclusions, but that doesn't suddenly make Entityism "blind faith". "Flawed logic" and "blind faith" are not the same thing.

Do you disagree with the Entityist's conclusion that the universe cannot exist without intelligent design?

[Justin108]

I am well aware that the existence of an intelligent creator is an assumption. The Entityist makes that assumption. He makes no further assumptions, however. To the Entityist, the universe cannot exist without a creator. To the Entityist, intelligent design is a necessity.

That is the same argument a deist makes re deism. Are you really not arguing for deism but disguising that by calling it ' Entityism'?

A Deist makes the declarative statement that god does not interact with man-kind. An Entityist would wonder how the Deist knows this. The Deist makes the assumption that just because god as a matter of fact does not and never did interact with man-kind. The Entityist makes no such assumption. Do I have to keep explaining the difference between Deism, Entityism and Atheism to you? It's really not that difficult. And frankly, it is utterly besides the point. The question is not "what are the similarities between Deism and Entityism?". If you're confused about the question for debate, please reread the OP.

[center]• Consciousness has always existed and always will exist. It had no beginning and will have no end. I call this consciousness "First Source" to denote the fundamental essence of all other types of consciousness derived from this one. [/center]

And you know this how? The very start of your rambling is a baseless assumption and everything that follows is exactly the same. I see no arguments. All I see are unsupported claims.

Those are some of the further assumptions we should make

Ok you gave me a bunch of assumptions we should make without giving me any reasons why we should make them. If you recall, I asked which further assumptions should we make and why?

You called your hypothetical religion 'Entityism' and my theology speaks in detail about the Entities. Thus my theology is more aligned with any actual thing which can be referred to as 'Entityism'

I don't care.

whereas your 'hypothetical religion' is indistinguishable from deism, as it has no theology.

Your inability to comprehend the distinction between Deism and Entityism does not make it indistinguishable. Another possible explanation might be that you just lack basic comprehension.

Here's a very very super simple example of how Entityism and Deism differs. If you still don't get it then there's simply nothing I can do about it.

Has god ever interacted with man?

Deist: no
Entityist: maybe

I can literally not make this any simpler.

Not if it aims to rewrite it and redefine it.

In essence this is the part of the point I am making. Your hypothetical 'religion' can be regarded as an attempt to 'rewrite and redefine' my own

How can I attempt to redefine your religion when I did not at any point mention your religion at all? If I said "Panentheism is..." then I would be redefining your religion. But I did no such thing because "Entityism" is not a thing. You are not an Entityist. You have never (to my knowledge) referred to yourself as an Entityist on this site prior to me opening this topic. What the hell are you even arguing about? Are you just bummed you didn't come up with the name first? I can't redefine a word if the word never existed before.

Entityism is defined in the OP as a religion

When it really isn't as the definition is not enough to qualify it as a 'religion' anyway.

Have you resorted to semantics? Call it religion, call it philosophy, call it a general belief system, call it whatever the hell you want.

[William]

[Replying to post 81 by Justin108]

A Deist makes the declarative statement that god does not interact with man-kind. An Entityist would wonder how the Deist knows this. The Deist makes the assumption that just because god as a matter of fact does not and never did interact with man-kind. The Entityist makes no such assumption.

Yes - I got that from the OP but it is here nor there as far as I can tell and you haven't bothered to clarify what this means for the Entityist.
What it does imply though is that even if the Entity were to interact with anyone, the Entityist would still have to assume that it is not the case, or else have some type of theology which explains how it can be the case.
Since there is no such theology, the assumption can only really ever be 'it is not the case' which is precisely the position of the deist/deism.

Do I have to keep explaining the difference between Deism, Entityism and Atheism to you? It's really not that difficult. And frankly, it is utterly besides the point. The question is not "what are the similarities between Deism and Entityism?". If you're confused about the question for debate, please reread the OP.

It is all very well having questions for debate but if the OP is questionable itself, this does require pointing out.

And you know this how? The very start of your rambling is a baseless assumption and everything that follows is exactly the same. I see no arguments. All I see are unsupported claims.

So tell me then, what do you consider to be 'supported claims'. Start off by supporting you own claims about Entityism .

Ok you gave me a bunch of assumptions we should make without giving me any reasons why we should make them. If you recall, I asked which further assumptions should we make and why?

I have actually be saying WHY throughout my attempt at intelligent dialog with you about this.
All you do is claim that there is no reason to assume anything but that the universe was created by an Entity, and that there is no reason to presume anything from that point.
I say that there is, even as part of the necessity to provide substance in relation to supporting the theology by building upon it from that point.

But were it CAN be possible for us to agree on ONE thing, is in the understanding that a creator entity is responsible for the existence of the universe.
My own theology explains why this has to be the case. You have no theology on why this has to be the case...or at least, none that you have included in your 'hypothetical religion' as you call it.

So lets be hearing more about that, and see if some agreement can be reached.

I don't care.

Well don't you find it a tad strange that you don't care about something which might benefit your own journey as an Entitist?
Don't you think that is more than a little strange? To be asking Christians to convince you that their theology is true (and thus yours is not?) when you cannot even care to interact with a panentheist - Panentheism being something which can easily enough embrace Entityism - why would anyone then think that you care about whether Christians can convince you or not. Clearly you have made up your mind, yes?

Your inability to comprehend the distinction between Deism and Entityism does not make it indistinguishable. Another possible explanation might be that you just lack basic comprehension.

Here's a very very super simple example of how Entityism and Deism differs. If you still don't get it then there's simply nothing I can do about it.

Has god ever interacted with man?

Deist: no
Entityist: maybe

I can literally not make this any simpler.

I will expand upon what I wrote earlier in this post.

"Entityist: 'maybe'", That is empty of any meaning. There is no theology explaining WHY 'maybe'. That would be important don't you think? Especially if you actually CARE what a Christian thinks, because the reason why you believe as an 'Entityist' that maybe GOD has, interacted with man, means that maybe GOD still does and can do even with YOU.

How would you explain to a Christian, or an atheist or an Deist, or a Panentheist etc, WHY you think it is 'maybe'?

See? That is the stuff of theologies. A religion has theologies, and even your pretend one has a couple.
How religion develops their theology is that ideas are built upon one another as a matter of necessity.

You appear to resist wanting to do so, and it appears the resistance derives from 'not wanting to presume' but still want Christians to 'convince' you, and yet you surely must know that many presumptions are involved in Christian theology, yes?

Thus, you must also already realize that no Christian is going to be able to convince you of the truth of their religion.
Which of course shows us that the OP challenge is empty of purpose, other than perhaps to show that no Christian could ever convince you of the truth of their religion, regardless of whether you were a deist, an atheist, or an entityist, but so what?

If you want to advertise that fact, you would be better off just saying so in your profile signature. Save yourself and everyone else the effort and waste of time in meaningless interaction in disingenuous thread topics which promote ideas that you don't even care about.

How can I attempt to redefine your religion when I did not at any point mention your religion at all?

Who said that you have to mention someone's position in order to redefine it? You are free of course to clarify your definition of your hypothetical religion as I suggested further back in this post. As it stands presently, it isn't really something which might be called a 'religion' as it has no substance to the couple of - well shall we call them 'doctrines' for arguments sake?

"GOD created the universe and 'maybe' interacts with people and I don't care about any other presumptions which can be built upon those two premises" isn't exactly great premise to hang argument on, let alone as doctrine, but these surely do beg the questions, and you not caring to answer them isn't helpful for reasons I have already given.

[Justin108]

A Deist makes the declarative statement that god does not interact with man-kind. An Entityist would wonder how the Deist knows this. The Deist makes the assumption that just because god as a matter of fact does not and never did interact with man-kind. The Entityist makes no such assumption.

Yes - I got that from the OP but it is here nor there as far as I can tell and you haven't bothered to clarify what this means for the Entityist.

What needs clarifying...?

What it does imply though is that even if the Entity were to interact with anyone, the Entityist would still have to assume that it is not the case, or else have some type of theology which explains how it can be the case.

Umm.. what? By "interact with anyone" do you mean "interact with god"? If the Entityist does interact with god, then he won't be making an assumption that god interacts with people. He would experience it first hand.

Since there is no such theology

Yes I am aware that there is no such a theology.... I made that clear in the OP when I clarified the fact that Entityism is a made up theology. We're 9 pages in and you're still stuck on this?

And you know this how? The very start of your rambling is a baseless assumption and everything that follows is exactly the same. I see no arguments. All I see are unsupported claims.

So tell me then, what do you consider to be 'supported claims'. Start off by supporting you own claims about Entityism .

The Entityist makes one unsupported claim in that an intelligent creator must exist. You, however, make several unsupported claims.

I for one am not an Entityist so I don't need to support this claim. The fact that this is Entityism vs. Christianity makes debating the existence of god a waste of time. Why debate an issue both parties agree on? The existence of god is not up for debate in this topic. That is why the OP is not Entityism vs. Atheism. Entering this debate, one would assume that god exists. And that is where the assumptions stop for the Entityist. You don't see Christians and Muslims debating the existence of god. That would be pointless. What they debate is which god and which Holy Book is real.

So instead of trying to turn my question on me, can you try actually answering it?

Ok you gave me a bunch of assumptions we should make without giving me any reasons why we should make them. If you recall, I asked which further assumptions should we make and why?

I have actually be saying WHY throughout my attempt at intelligent dialog with you about this.

I must have missed it. Can you give me an example? Just one. Give me one claim specific to your religion followed by a reason for that claim.

All you do is claim that there is no reason to assume anything but that the universe was created by an Entity, and that there is no reason to presume anything from that point.

When did I say this? Quote me.

But were it CAN be possible for us to agree on ONE thing, is in the understanding that a creator entity is responsible for the existence of the universe.
My own theology explains why this has to be the case.

Do you have anything supporting your explanations? Or are they all just your own personal conjecture?

You called your hypothetical religion 'Entityism' and my theology speaks in detail about the Entities. Thus my theology is more aligned with any actual thing which can be referred to as 'Entityism'

I don't care.

Well don't you find it a tad strange that you don't care about something which might benefit your own journey as an Entitist?

All you're doing is complaining about the fact that I chose to call this belief "Entityism". How exactly would listening to your complaints about semantics and labels further my journey as an Entityist?

To be asking Christians to convince you that their theology is true (and thus yours is not?) when you cannot even care to interact with a panentheist - Panentheism being something which can easily enough embrace Entityism - why would anyone then think that you care about whether Christians can convince you or not.

Well if the panentheist were to actually make a point rather than rambling on about the name of my religion, that would be a good start.

I will expand upon what I wrote earlier in this post.

"Entityist: 'maybe'", That is empty of any meaning.

maybe
ˈmeɪbi�,ˈmeɪbi/
adverb

perhaps; possibly.

There is no theology explaining WHY 'maybe'.

Should the Entityist just make something up? Or should he acknowledge the fact that he does not have enough information to make a valid conclusion?

Why 'maybe'? Because the Entityist does not have enough information to make a valid conclusion. The Entityist is left with either making something up, or admitting that he does not know. Hence "maybe". Is that a good enough explanation for WHY 'maybe'?

How can I attempt to redefine your religion when I did not at any point mention your religion at all?

Who said that you have to mention someone's position in order to redefine it?

Common sense.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 70 by Justin108]

Which specific facts persuaded you that someone actually rose from the dead?

Really? I think I explained in my last post that this process took close to three years. In other words, and again, I am not the type of person who is easily persuaded, one way or the other. Unlike others, I will not take one side or the other, until I have examined the evidence thoroughly. If I do not care, then I may simply choose to doubt, because I really do not want to take the time in order to be convinced one way or the other.

Also unlike you, I would not be convinced that, "someone saw a pigeon" simply because they said so. Rather, I would simply be convinced, that this is what they claim to have seen.

So, as we can see, it seems as if you are easily convinced one way or the other, while it takes a whole lot more for me to take a stand one way, or the other. In other words, you seem to dismiss things, simply because they are hard to believe, and believe other things simply because they are not difficult to believe, while I will not simply dismiss something because I may find it hard to believe, and believe others simply on the basis the odds. As I have said, I may simply choose to doubt certain things that I am not interested in, but doubting certain things, is not in any way claiming they are false.

With all this being the case, it is not as though there was one simple thing that convinced me. Rather, it was the whole of the evidence pieced together. So then, if you believe that my post are long, they would be extremely short in comparison to if I were to attempt to sit down, and go through all the things that has convinced me, that was almost a three year process, because I would imagine that it would take a book.

Because, you see, I have not even dealt with the OT at all, which is where I would have to begin if I were to go through the whole process. At any rate, it is not as though I simply chose to believe, rather I am compelled to believe, and I am compelled by the evidence involved. In fact, if I could choose, I will assure you that I would rather not believe. Who would want to believe these things?

Natural consequences? You know what the natural consequence of dying is? Staying dead. Do you honestly think that Luke lying or being delusional is somehow more unnatural than someone coming back from the dead?

Here is a great example of the vast difference between us! You seem to simply look at the likelihoods, and allow this to determine what it is you believe. In other words, it seems as if all you do is to say, "it is highly more likely that Luke was either, lying, deceived, or mistaken, than a body coming back to life", without analyzing any of the other facts involved. This sort of thing is fine, and I will do this myself, with those things I am unconcerned about, and would rather not get involved. However, if this is what I chose to do, then I certainly would not get involved in a debate site, where these things are discussed.

As for me, when I hear certain things, I first attempt to determine if it is something I believe to be important enough to even try to discover what it is I believe. If I believe that it is indeed important enough, I will assure that I will weigh more than the odds, because I understand that the odds, never tell, the whole tale. So again, as we can clearly see, you are easier to convince, than myself.

Because you see, I certainly understand what usually happens when a person dies, but I do not dismiss a claim simply because I understand these things. Rather, I go on to analyze the evidence involved. You seem to act as, if these men were lying, deceived, mistaken, etc., that this would be the easy answer. But it is not in any way at all, because it does not explain away all the facts. In other words, lying certainly would have been, an extremely difficult task.

The bottom line here is, either these men were telling the truth, and it was the greatest thing that has ever happened. Or, these men pulled off the greatest hoax in the history of the world, and they would have done so, being ordinary fishermen, and one tax collector, in the face of all that was opposed to them.

So then yes, if you simply look at the likelihood of a body coming back to life, then it is certainly easier to believe that it did not occur. However, when you go on to analyze all the other facts involved, you begin to see, that it is not that simple at all, because either way, it is an extremely "unlikely" tale, and simply asking which one seems more "unlikely" will not get you any closer to the truth.

Are you suggesting that Biblical scholars are just out to trick us into doubting the Bible?

Well, I don't know, so let's think about this. When you watch one of the big news channels, do you believe that you are getting the real news? Or, do you understand that each one of them, have a particular slant, and report the news toward that particular bias?

So then, would it be possible for a good many of the scholars to have a particular bias, and attempt to sway opinion toward such bias with their opinion? There are many examples, but allow me to give you just one.

Many of the scholars argue that Paul could not have wrote one of the letters to Timothy, that has been attributed to him. What is the evidence? Well, according to these scholars, "Church structure would not have been that advanced in his lifetime, therefore this letter would have had to been written long after the time of Paul"............and that's it!

So then, you have these scholars who make these very weak arguments, but because they are scholars, there are those who do not even listen to the arguments, and will simply assume, they must, and have to be right, because they are scholars.

So yeah, you can go ahead and believe the scholars are sincere, and are looking out for our best interests, but I am not so easily persuaded.

Do you believe that their questioning the authors of the Bible is unwarranted?

Absolutely not! In fact, I welcome it, because I am the type of person who questions everything. So let us look at some of the questions these scholars raise.

These scholars claim, that it is possible, and even, "likely" that the Gospels were not written by those they have been attributed to. Rather, their claim is, these things were, "more than likely" written well after the lifetime of the Apostles, and those who wrote them were simply writing stories that had been handed down, and the authors certainly were not eyewitnesses of the things they record. So let's think about this?

My first question would be, who was it years later, who decided to sit down in order to put these things in writing? I mean, if it were years later, then you would think that there would have been those earlier who would have attempted to do such a thing. But no! No one decided to put these things in writing until years later, and it is not simply one person years later. Rather, there are multiple folks who decide to do this, when in fact, no one ever thought of this before.

Next, we have the fact that there certainly would have been an overlap between the generations. In other words, there certainly would have been those who would have known, "I have never seen these writings until now. So then, where in the world did these writings come from that is now said to be attributed to those who were alive at the time of, Jesus?"

In my mind, this would be the first two obvious questions that would need to be asked. But then, there is the fact that, this explanation may well work for the, Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, but they do not seem to work at all for what has been called, "The Gospel of Luke."

Why? Well, because you see, this author was not in any way writing what would be considered, folk lore. Rather, this author claimed to be a witness, of at least some of the things he records. With this being the case, this author would have had to have been alive during the time of the events he records, unless there was one years later, who had the presence of mind to begin to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events, without actually claiming to have been there, in order to make it seem as though he was.

Next, this author uses the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events associated with the journeys of Paul, and claims to have been with Paul, all the way, and up until Paul's journey to Rome, in order to stand trial, and claims that Paul ended up, under house arrest.

Then, we have Paul, in a letter to a completely different audience, addressing completely different concerns claiming, "only Luke is with me." Now, this is pretty powerful evidence that, Luke was indeed with Paul throughout his missionary journeys, and that Luke was indeed the author of both, "The Gospel of Luke", along with the, "Actions of the Apostles."

On top of all of this, to demonstrate even further, this writing was not in any way addressed to the general public, but was rather addressed to, an individual. Also, this author makes it clear from the beginning that he is not in any way writing stories that have been handed down, but rather claimed to have, "investigated everything from the beginning", on top of claiming to have witnessed certain events.

So does this mean that he cannot be lying? NO! But it does mean, that the author is at least, claiming to have been alive, to investigate, and witness certain events. So now, let us take into consideration all that would have to be involved, in order for this author to have been lying, and actually writing years later after the events.

Well, for one thing, this author would have had to write, not one, but two very long and detailed letters, as though it were addressed to a personal friend. One in which he only claims to have, "investigated everything from the beginning", and the other in which he seems to naturally begin to use the words, "we", and "us", to describe certain events, without coming right out and claiming to have witnessed them, even though the use of these words would necessarily entail such a thing.

Then, this same person would have had to think of writing a letter, as though it was written by Paul, and then go on to have the presence of mind, to simply mention the name of Luke, as being with him, so as to make it look as though, the letters coincide together.

Or, there would have had to have been two separate authors, who colluded with each other, in which the one said, "I am going to write two long and detailed letters as though I was writing to a friend. Once I do this, you need to write a letter as if it was written by Paul, and in this letter, you need to mention the name of Luke, in order to make it look as though, our two letters coincide, in order to deceive people into believing that these letters were actually written by those who were alive at the time, and in this way, we may actually get them to believe these things are actually true."

Or, it just so happened that two separate authors, without any knowledge of the other, who just so happen to years later, write letters, that just so happen to coincide?

Or, these letters were actually written by those they have been attributed to, and the reason they just so happen to coincide, is because what they report, is at the very least, what they believed to be the truth.

Now, do you really want to continue to talk to me about the, "likelihoods?" Because. I will assure you that, the last scenario would end up being the most likely in this case. In other words, it is quite easy to simply claim that it is a possibility that these men were simply lying. However, it is quite another to actually sit down and think through all that would have had to be involved in order for them to have been lying.

So then, as we can see, we have at least one of the Gospels that could not possibly have been written years later, and the evidence strongly suggests, that what is recorded was not simply stories that were handed down. Rather, these things would have been recorded at, or around the time of the events.

So then, why is it that these scholars question the Gospels, and when they were written? Well, like you, they doubt the content. However, unlike you, these scholars understand these writings are very strong evidence, and also unlike you, they understand that simply doubting is not a sufficient argument, and an explanation must be given for these writings. This is why they put forth the possibility of the writings being written years later, and what is recorded could have been things that had been past down through the years.

But you see, these scholars have a problem with, "The Gospel of Luke", and "The Actions of the Apostles." With this being the case, they begin to question whether Paul was actually the author of all the letters that have been attributed to him.

Well, which letters do you suppose they choose to doubt were written by Paul? Well, I know this is going to be SHOCKING! But it just so happens, these scholars choose to doubt the letters that tend to give the most credence to the truth of the content. You know like, the one in which Paul actually mentions, "only Luke is with me?" Yea, that is one of those letters they want to doubt, and I assure you, I understand why they choose to doubt that one.

So yea, you can go on and grab a hold of what the scholars have to say, as if it were the Gospel truth. But I would keep in mind that you already seem to believe that the men associated with the Gospel message, (the Biblical writers) could have been using deceit in order to get there message out. So, are we suggesting that these men were the only ones capable of such a thing, and there is no way that it may be possible that it is the scholars who could be using deceit?

So the question to me was, "Do you believe that their questioning the authors of the Bible is unwarranted?" My answer to this question is, "NO." So now the question to you is, is questioning the motives of the scholars, "unwarranted?"

Whether you find this argument tiring or not is irrelevant. It's still perfectly valid. The burden of proof is a law of logic. That you think it is worn out does not change the fact that it is a law of logic.

I understand the argument. In other words, if one makes a claim, then that person is under the burden to demonstrate the claim is true. So far, so good. However, are you under the impression that you can claim that their claim is a false claim, and you have no burden to prove it is false?

Next, as far as I am concerned, what claims have I made that place me under the burden of proof? I have simply claimed that, I believe there may indeed be good, and solid reasons to believe the content of the letters contained in the Bible, and have gone on to give some of those reasons.

So then, now the question is, are you claiming that there are no good and solid reasons to believe? If so, I believe you have the burden. However, if you are simply claiming to believe there are no good, and solid reasons, then what are the reasons behind this claim? Or, are you simply making no claims, one way or the other?

Well no! You actually have made some claims, because you have claimed that it is possible that all of the content in the Bible could be the product of a lie, deception, or simply being mistaken. However, when you make such a claim, then you are at least responsible to go through what all would have to be involved.

The point is, I am not claiming these things are absolutely true, and you do not seem to be claiming that they are absolutely false, so how do either of us have a burden at all? However, I am at least willing to work through all the possibilities, to determine what all would have to be involved for that scenario to in fact be true, while you seem to believe that all one needs to do, is to weigh the odds, and, or throw out the tired old, "burden of proof" argument, which is simply a way in which one seems to believe they can avoid dealing with the facts.

Without the burden of proof, you wouldn't have an argument.

This is SO SO funny! But let's go on to read the rest of your comment here.

If someone said "God is an alien dragon from the Nexus realm" what possible argument could one muster against this other than pointing to the burden of proof? So now we have two options.
1. Use the burden of proof.
2. Don't engage in the discussion at all.

If you opt for option 2. on the grounds that you simply do not like the burden of proof argument, then so be it. I'll go for the tried and true option 1.

First, if the only options I had were the two that you give, then I would see no point at all in using option one. In other words, using option one, would not be much better than option two, because you are really not adding anything at all to the discussion.

Therefore, and again, if these were the only options I had, then I will assure you that I would not waste my time engaging in the conversations on a web site, simply saying, "you have the burden."

With this being said, I believe you have left out an option. To explain this option, let us leave God out of the equation for a moment, and look at another argument.

Suppose there was one who was attempting to make the argument that, "the Sun revolves around the Earth." If I choose option one, this person could point up to the sky, and clearly demonstrate that the Sun is moving across the sky. This is option one, because according to you, I have no argument to muster.

Option 2, is to not engage at all, and I see no difference between these 2 at all, if all you can do in option 1, is to allow the opponent to make the case.

The option you left out would be the one in which you actually engage in the conversation, and weigh the evidence involved, and go on to to give a better explanation that would better explain all the facts involved.

With this being the case, if there was one attempting to make the case that, "God is an alien dragon from the Nexus realm", and all I had were the two options you give, then I would certainly choose number 2.

However, I would have option 3, in which I actually add to the conversation, and could go on to give them all the reasons there are to believe the content contained in the Bible, and attempt to explain to them why I believe this to be the better explanation.

But, I can surely understand those who really have nothing to add but their doubt, and all they know how to do is to weigh the odds, opting for number one. What else can they do?

Oh is that the question? Ok. So which is actually true? Christianity? Entityism? Or none of the above? Also how would you suggest we go about proving which is actually true?

You continue to confuse the conversation. My point is, simply asking, "which seems more rational" many times will not lead one to the truth of the matter, on top of the fact that what my seem rational to you, may not be the same for another.

So then, when I am confronted with certain claims, I will certainly think of what seems more rational to me, but I also understand that this question does not, and has not always told the tale. Therefore, if it seems important enough to me, then I will surely look into more than, what seems more rational.

For one thing, what may seem more rational to begin with, may in fact be the least rational, once you begin to weigh all the facts involved, but either way, what seems more rational, does not, and has not, always lead to the truth of the matter.

In my experience, things that are most rational often end up being true.

You just made my point, and you make it well! Since you say, "often" then this certainly suggests that there are times when it has not. I would think, if there are those who acknowledge that the most rational has not always been the case, then they would be less inclined to depend on it. Especially, with things of such importance!

If there are those that believe Luke and Paul when they claimed Jesus rose from the dead, then they are simply dreaming up some sort of answer, because there would be no evidence, other than that Luke and Paul said Jesus came back from the dead and that the tomb was empty, which has other explanations.

No, you are absolutely wrong here, my friend. You see, if food goes bad, and there is one who claims there are "pixies" that are causing this, then this would be something they have dreamed up, in order to explain the food going bad.

However, I did not dream up the letters of Luke, and I did not dream up the letters of Paul. I did not dream up a man named Jesus, and I did not dream up that He was crucified. I did not dream up, the fact that there were those who claimed He was alive after death, and I did not dream up the fact that there was indeed an empty tomb.

I did not dream up the fact that Paul was violently opposed to this movement. I did not dream up the fact that he converted. I did not dream up the fact that this one who was so violently opposed became it's greatest champion.

No, I did not dream up these, nor did I dream up all the rest of the facts involved, which would be a far cry from one simply dreaming up some sort of explanation to explain food going bad.

Also, I did not simply dream up, that Luke, and Paul were telling the truth. Rather I have examined all the evidence and have come to a conclusion. So now, the question to you is, what about all of these other possibilities you have supplied, as far as the facts are concerned? Are they simply things you have dreamed up? Or, is there some sort of evidence to support them?

Odd that you would demand evidence for the claim that pixies exist. Wait a minute... aren't you using the burden of proof argument? You know... the one you criticized a few paragraphs ago?

Where in what I had to say, did I use the "burden of proof" argument? If you will notice, I went on to say, "there would be no evidence for pixies, and there would be a better explanation to explain the food going bad."

So you see, I am not simply insisting that the person prove their case, while never contributing to the conversation. Rather, I am engaging, and giving a better explanation. The "burden of proof" argument, is not much different than two children arguing on the play ground, and when one makes a claim, the other shouts out, "prove it", as though this sort of thing, settles the argument.

The thing is, and as far as I know, I have not made any claims at all that I cannot demonstrate, of prove to be true.

You are completely missing the point. I am not saying that there is as much evidence for pixies as there is for Christianity, I am saying that having a reason to believe is not the same as having a good reason to believe.

Well good! At least here you seem to be acknowledging the fact that there would be more evidence to back the Christian claims, then there would be for "pixies." But let us talk about what you call, "good reasons."

Would a young child have a good reason to believe in, Santa? Well, I believe they would, now wouldn't they? They have been told the story by their parents, whom they trust, and their are presents under the tree every Christmas morning.

However, as they become older, they are given a better explanation for the presents, and they no longer would have a good reason to believe. Now, let's compare this to Christianity.

Is there any reason to believe the Christian message, at all? Well, as I have demonstrated, there are a vast number of reasons, and I have gone on to explain why these reasons would be good reasons to believe.

Now, as we compare this to Santa, has there been any explanation at all, that would utterly explain away all the facts involved concerning Christianity, in the same way as Santa? In fact, has there been any absolute explanation at all that would explain away all the facts involved concerning Christianity? Or, is the argument simply based upon the likelihoods?

You see, there really is no comparison here at all. In other words, after 2000 years of this story, there has not been any explanation at all that could, or would dismiss the events of Christianity, which is one of the reasons for this site. You do not see very many sites discussing the real existence of Santa, pixies, spaghetti monsters, etc.

The point is, until there is an absolute better explanation, that would completely explain away all the facts involved, then what would be good reasons, would totally be up to opinions, and we all have opinions, and as far as I can see, you have failed to even attempt to explain how your opinion would be the better opinion.

As already explained in post 55, establishing the likelihood of a given explanation is dealing with the facts.

It is not dealing with the facts at all! As you have already admitted, "likelihoods" do not always....... in fact they NEVER tell the tale! In other words, even if we were to weigh the "likelihoods", and our conclusions ended up being correct, it would not be because of the "likelihoods", because likelihoods would have nothing to do with the truth.

Again, I have already dealt with the facts. Establishing the likelihood of a given explanation is dealing with the facts.

And again you are so far off here! First, and far most, you have not "established" anything at all. Next, you have simply dealt with the "likelihood" of a body coming back to life, when there are other facts involved, in which the likelihoods would need to be weighed as well.

In other words, if the only fact we had concerning Christianity was a body coming back to life, then this would be the only "likelihood" that could, or would need to be weighed. But even if this were the case, the "likelihood" would not get us any closer to whether a body actually came back to life at all. Rather, it would simply tell us, "how likely it may be."

However, as we know, there are a vast number of facts involved concerning Christianity, and if we are going to weigh the likelihoods, then we need to weigh all that would be involved.

The point is, if we simply look at the likelihood of a body coming back to life, then we would surely come to the conclusion that, it is not very likely at all, but this still would not get us any closer as to whether there actually has been a body that has come back to life.

But as we continue to weigh the likelihoods with all the other facts involved, then we begin to see that, even though the likelihood of a body coming back to life is not very good, the likelihood of all of these reports being all, and completely false is not very good either.

A few examples would be, how likely would it be for 12 ordinary men, 11 fishermen, and one tax collector, to have pulled all of these things off, in the face of those who were not only opposed, but had every reason to be opposed? How likely would it be for these men to all continue to tell the same tale, all knowing it was a lie? How likely would it be for at least some of them to begin to recant, knowing it all to be a lie, and this lie is causing them tremendous troubles?

How likely is it, that they all were lying? How likely would it be that they all were deceived, and continued to be successful? Not successful as far as numbers go, but successful as far as continuing on with a story that they were deceived about themselves? How likely would it be for them all to have been mistaken about the same exact events, and continue on in the face of those opposed, when all those opposed would have to do, is to demonstrate their error, by producing proof, and giving an explanation for the empty tomb?

With that in mind, how likely would it be for there to be those would claimed a tomb was empty, and there were none who ever came up with the true explanation of what exactly caused this empty tomb?

How likely would it be for all of the content of the Bible, not to have been written by those they have been attributed to? How likely would it be for there to be those years later after the events, to write letters, as if it were written to different audiences at the time of the events, and there to be other letters written years later after the events, that just so happen to coincide?

How likely would it be for a person to sit down and write not one, but two long and detailed letters to a friend, explaining certain events, claiming to have "investigated everything thoroughly from the beginning" knowing it was all a lie? How likely would it be for this same person, to spend years of his life, traveling with Paul, in horrendous conditions, using the words, "we", and "us" to describe the events, to go on to record these events to his friend, knowing it was all a lie?

How likely would it be for this same person to claim to have been traveling with Paul, all the way, and up until Paul is under house arrest, and then in a letter claiming to have been written by Paul, which certainly seems to have been written while Paul would have been under house arrest, the author simply mentions in passing to his audience, "only Luke is with me", for these letters to have been a fabrication?

You see, I could continue on, and on, weighing the likelihoods, but let us look at just one more. What would be the likelihood that all that has been known, and believed about the Bible throughout all these years to have been false, and now some 2000 years later, the scholars have it all right?

Again, I could continue this for quite some time, looking at the likelihoods, but in the end, I would be nowhere closer to what the truth actually is. This is why, I do not deal to much at all, with the, likelihoods!

Did I ever say there are no good reasons to believe? Would you be kind enough to quote me on this?

Okay, so are you suggesting that there may be good reasons to believe? If so, we are wasting our time, because this is all I am saying, which is, "there are good and solid reasons to believe Christianity to be true." If you agree, then we really have no argument. At any rate, allow me to quote you.

You are completely missing the point. I am not saying that there is as much evidence for pixies as there is for Christianity, I am saying that having a reason to believe is not the same as having a good reason to believe.

I took this to mean, there may be reasons to believe Christianity, but there are no good reasons? Maybe I misread, and you believe there are good reasons to believe. However, if this is the case, then I fail to see the point in the quote.

Then why bother bringing it up? Why mention it at all? How is Luke writing to Theophilus relevant? Not only did you find it relevant enough to bring it up, but you did so repeatedly. Why?

Because, there are those who claim that the Gospels were simply religious propaganda, and were written in order to sway public opinion. This could in fact be true. In other words, if I were to simply put out a public notice, my motivation could simply be to sway the public opinion. If this is the case with the Gospels, it could explain the content.

However, if I were to address a letter to a personal friend, and years later, there are those who read this letter, then it would be clear that I am not attempting to sway public opinion. In other words, the scholar's arguments do not work with the letters of Luke. With this being the case, it is a very good possibility that the other Gospels were intended for specific audiences as well, and were never intended for public consumption, much like the letters of Paul.

The point is, if you are honest with yourself, and the content of the Bible, then you will certainly acknowledged that the letters of Luke, and Paul, were never intended for anyone else but the intended audience, and they only had the intended audience in mind as they wrote.

This means, we are actually reading letters, that were never intended for us to read, and therefore, we are reading a letter written between different audiences. If you cannot see the significance of this, then I do not know what to say? If I do not care about the truth, and simply write in order to sway public opinion, then this could explain the content. If I write a personal letter to a friend, then what is my motivation to lie to this friend, when I have went to the extent to assure this friend that I have investigated everything?

Saying "he cannot be accused of religious propaganda" is just another way of saying "he cannot be accused of lying".

GOOD GRIEF! How in the world could you come to this conclusion? I could write a personal letter to a friend, and lie just as well as if I were writing propaganda. If I were writing propaganda, it may explain the content, and the motivation. If I write to a friend, all the things, and the way in which the author of the letters of Luke, I could be lying, but what would be my motivation? I may have a motivation, but it cannot be said it was, to sway public opinion.

You really need to sit down and read, "The Actions of the Apostles", just as it is written. In other words, read it as a letter that was written by Luke, to Theophilus. Once you do this honestly, then explain to me, what you believe the author's intent was? I am not saying we will ever come to an exact conclusion, but what would be your honest conclusion as to his intent? I would be willing to wager that you, and many others have never read these letters, in this way.

What you're doing here is highlighting Luke's motives. Which is one step away from questioning his feelings,

AGAIN, GOOD GRIEF! Motivation, has everything to do with REASON, and has nothing whatsoever to do with, "feelings!" What was the REASON for his writing? Not, what was he FEELING?

Aaand we're back to sincerity. And before you throw a tantrum because I used the "s" word again, saying "Luke did not lie" is the exact same as saying he is sincere!

sincere
sɪnˈsɪə/
adjective
free from pretence or deceit

pretence
prɪˈtɛns/
noun
an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.

deceit
dɪˈsi�t/
noun
the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth.

So as you can see, according to... well... the English language, saying "Luke did not lie" means Luke was sincere.

First, I have never said that, "Luke did not lie." I have certainly never said, "he was sincere." My point is, since it is clear that he was not attempting to sway public opinion, (because his letters were not addressed to the public), then what would be his motivation, (reason, not feeling) for lying to a personal friend? He may have been lying, but why?

You see, it is very simple to simply acknowledge the fact that he could have been lying. It is quite another to actually read the content in the way it was written, and honestly ask, "how, and why would he be lying?"

What do you mean by "easiest conclusion"?

I think I explained this thoroughly above. If I am really not all that interested in getting to the truth, then I may simply look at the likelihoods, and assume one way or the other. However, I would also understand that I have not arrived to what the truth may actually be.

This would be coming to the easiest conclusion. In other words, I really do not want to be bothered with all that it would take in order to come to a real informed decision. So, I will take the easy way out.

No you're the only one I know of who uses their level of caring about something as a factor in establishing how likely it is to be true.

Where have I ever suggested that my "level of caring", has anything at all to do with what the likelihoods would be? I have not! My "level of caring" would have everything to do with whether I simply looked at the likelihoods, or whether I would dig further into the matter, and look beyond the, likelihoods.

To me, the rationality of a claim is utterly irrelevant to my personal stake in the claim.

Well for me, I understand that what I may think to be rational, does not always end up being the actual truth, and there have been things that I have thought to be irrational, that became more rational as I began to look into the matter more closely. Therefore, if I truly want to get the the truth of the matter, then I will look further into it than simply what seems to be rational to me. If I really do not care to know the actual truth, I may simply stick with what seems more rational, acknowledging that I could be absolutely wrong, because I have not investigated thoroughly.

No, I am explaining to you what I mean by extraordinary evidence. I define extraordinary evidence as evidence that either cannot be wrong, are highly unlikely to be wrong, or are so vast that all the evidence combined rationally concludes to this extraordinary claim being true. "Extraordinary evidence" to me is either evidence of great quality, or evidence of great quantity. Or both.

For example, saying "I saw an alien" is poor quality evidence, whereas seeing an alien for yourself is good quality evidence. Furthermore, if I saw the alien, recorded it, reviewed the recorded footage, etc. then the evidence would be extraordinary in that it is both good quality evidence as well as good quantity evidence.

Alternatively, if someone just said "I saw a pigeon today" and the only evidence they had was their claim, then to me their claim would be enough. The evidence is poor quality and poor quantity. However, considering how utterly ordinary and mundane the claim is, I would be satisfied with the poor quality and quantity of the evidence.

So with that clarified, do you agree that some claims require more evidence (in quality and quantity) than others?

Tell you what, why don't we do this? We have all the material contained in the Bible. So, what is the "extraordinary evidence", that it is not true? You see, this sort of thing works both ways. In other words, we need certain evidence in order to believe something to be true. However, you also need certain evidence, in order to believe something is false, as well.

You see, your burden of proof argument is not working out so well here. The claims I have made, I can demonstrate, or prove. As far as the claims of the Biblical writers, they have no burden of proof at all as far as you and I are concerned, since they were not addressing us in any way. So again, what is the extraordinary evidence that what is contained in the Bible is false?

And it is hard to believe because it is highly improbable. How is this any different from you finding it "hard to believe" that Luke was lying or delusional?

I have never said that, "it is hard to believe Luke was lying." I understand perfectly well that this would be easy to believe. Rather, I continue on from this to actually read the content in the way it has been written, and then go on to ask myself some questions.

You see, it is easy to simply assume that what Luke recorded, must, and has to be false. It is quite another to actually go on to discover what all of this would have had to entail. Have you actually done this sort of thing? Or, is it that it is simply to extraordinary to believe, and you dismiss it upon these grounds?

They might be under the impression that it is true. Humans have a history of believing absurd and irrational things.

Is there any extraordinary evidence to believe this to be the case? In fact, is there any reason at all to believe this to be the case? You see, I have given reasons, and evidence for the things I believe. Can you do the same? Or, is it that you just want to throw possibilities out there? I can do that as well. It is possible they were telling the truth.

Well clearly you don't understand this because you still think it is more likely that Jesus actually came back from the dead that that people were simply lying or delusional.

I have never suggested that it was, "more likely that Jesus actually came back from the dead than that people were simply lying or delusional", because in this case I am not concerned at all with the likelihoods, because I understand they have nothing to do with what may have actually happened. You are the one who seems obsessed with the, likelihoods!

Allow me to explain it to you this way. Do I believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Yes I do. What do I believe is more likely? Jesus rising from the dead? Or, there were those who lied about this? The more likely would be, there were those who lied. Now, what would this have to do with what really happened?

Except, as mentioned before, listing several possible explanations is not the same as making an assumption. I never said "they were delusional", I only offered it as a possible explanation.

Okay, since all we are doing is, "listing possibilities", then it is possible they were in their right mind, and telling the truth. Likelihood, understood, considered, and acknowledged to have nothing to do with the truth.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 84 by Realworldjack]

The bottom line here is, either these men were telling the truth, and it was the greatest thing that has ever happened. Or, these men pulled off the greatest hoax in the history of the world, and they would have done so, being ordinary fishermen, and one tax collector, in the face of all that was opposed to them.

So then yes, if you simply look at the likelihood of a body coming back to life, then it is certainly easier to believe that it did not occur. However, when you go on to analyze all the other facts involved, you begin to see, that it is not that simple at all, because either way, it is an extremely "unlikely" tale, and simply asking which one seems more "unlikely" will not get you any closer to the truth.

One involves the reincarnation/resurrection of a until-then dead body, something that violates quite literally all of humanity's understanding of the laws of physics and biology...
The other involves merely changing what a sizeable group of humans believe.

I never forget the Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid. They can be made to believe any lie because either they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it's true.

Nothing in the First Rule involves or requires what is essentially magic to take place.

Let's not forget that Christianity isn't the only religion that can trace its origins back to whom we could call 'simple' people. Islam has Muhammed, a merchant.

What is so remarkable about the thought of people believing something that is in fact false, that somehow translates in your mind that maybe the thing they believe is true?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 85 by rikuoamero]

One involves the reincarnation/resurrection of a until-then dead body, something that violates quite literally all of humanity's understanding of the laws of physics and biology...
The other involves merely changing what a sizeable group of humans believe.

What in the world are you talking about? Did you notice that we were talking about the, "likelihood" of certain events occurring? One of them would be as you say the, "resurrection of a until-then dead body." However, what in the world would, what a group of people happen to believe, have anything at all to do with anything concerning this conversation? It has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

So then, the scenario is, the likelihood of a corpse coming back to life, as opposed to certain folks lying about a corpse coming back to life? What certain people happen to believe would not, does not, and could not even enter into the equations here. So where are you getting it from?

As we compare the likelihoods, as you will see, if you just so happen to read the whole post, I would agree that it would be more likely that, there were those that were lying about a corpse coming back to life. However, with this being the case, this fact would not in any way lead us any closer, as to whether there has indeed been a corpse that has come back to life.

I never forget the Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid. They can be made to believe any lie because either they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it's true.

And again, what in the world would, "people being stupid", and "what they happen to believe" have anything to do with what we are talking about? It has nothing whatsoever to do with this conversation. This conversation has everything to do with, what may have actually happened, in spite of, and, or opposed to, what people happen to believe.

They can be made to believe any lie because either they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it's true.

I agree! But this is not confined to simply those who happen to believe Christianity. It can also be said of those who happen to oppose Christianity. In other words, there could be those who simply want to believe Christianity to be false, or because they are afraid it may be true.

Let's not forget that Christianity isn't the only religion that can trace its origins back to whom we could call 'simple' people. Islam has Muhammed, a merchant.

First, I am not declaring Islam to be false. So what in the world would Islam have to do with Christianity being true, or false?

Next, if you would like to compare the evidence concerning the truth of Christianity, as compared to, Islam I am more than willing to have that conversation. For starters, Islam is simply based upon what one person claims God had told him about what God requires from us a humans.

On the other hand, Christianity is based upon, what numerous letters, authored by numerous different people, addressed to numerous different audiences, addressing numerous different concerns, claim as being actual historical events. And I am not simply talking about, the major events such as the Resurrection.

With this being the case, we are able to compare these numerous different letters, authored by numerous different authors, addressed to numerous different audiences, addressing numerous different concerns, and compare these letters, not simply to see if they report the same things, because this would be expected, but rather to determine if certain other events of less minor consequences line up together.

In this way, we would not simply be taking the word of what one person happened to claim that God had told them. Rather, we are able to compare even the more minor details.

The point is, it is very easy to simply throw out these other religions as a comparison, without actually thinking these comparisons through. It is quite another when you actually start to think them through. If I were you, I would leave these comparisons alone, but I am more than eager to go there with you.

What is so remarkable about the thought of people believing something that is in fact false

There is nothing about this that is "remarkable" to me at all, which is why I do not understand why in the world you would bring it up? If you read the whole post you would see that my point was, "there is not simply one point in which the likelihoods would have to be considered as far as Christianity is concerned, such as the Resurrection. Rather, there are many, many, other FACTS, in which the likelihoods would have to be considered."

So, while the likelihood of a corpse coming back to life is not very good at all, there are also many other facts concerning Christianity that would absolutely have to be weighed. I went through all of these things in my post, and I am not willing to do it all again here, because you are more than welcome to read it.

However, even when all the likelihoods are considered, you will be no closer to what the truth may actually be, than you were when you started, because I will assure you that there are numerous things in which the likelihoods will not line up in your favor, which is why I do not much deal with, likelihoods.

that somehow translates in your mind that maybe the thing they believe is true?

Tell you what. I have a whole post that you saw the need to respond to, that is filled with words. I challenge you to quote me anywhere in which I have said anything close to this at all. If you cannot, then you have wasted our time, making a point that is nowhere to be found.

There is a segment in one of the Sunday NFL shows which is called, "Com' on Man." It is title as such because they point out certain things that have occurred that seem ridiculous, and they call out the guilty party by saying, "Com,on Man."

This is all I can think to say to you here. "Com on Man!" Do you really think that anyone at all would attempt to make an argument that, "there have been many people who believe these things, therefore it must, and has to be true, because there are far too many people who have believed it?" Con'on Man! Be for real!