The validity of Christianity depends upon proof of the resurrection.
Einstein proved, & the Hubble telescope verified, that before the Universe existed…there was no time & space; there was nothing.
Since something can’t evolve from nothing, there has to be a cause, thus, the Universe had to be caused by something/someone.
The Universe is so intricately & perfectly balanced that it HAD to be designed/created by intelligence: GOD. (Odds of an accidental perfect balance are one in trillions of trillions; example: change gravity by 1 millioneth of a unit & the entire Universe would disintegrate.)
Jesus is a proven historical figure, documented by many different historians of his time, Roman, Greek, Jewish & Arab.
A GOD powerful enough to create the Universe could easily create Jesus in the womb of a virgin, & restore him to life after death.
There are definite, multiple eye-witness reports of Jesus seen after death.
Dude, best get on the horn with the Vatican right quick.
Although many of us were expecting for the next Messiah to be the gay son and heir to an US zillionaire, no one ever said miracles were easy to predict.
Other than simply walking on water, what are you’re credentials?
The only ancient historian I am aware of who even mentions Jesus (and then only in passing, one paragraph in the midst of it all) was Josephus, a.k.a. Flavius Josephus, and he was Jewish. So who are your Roman, Greek, and Arab historians who you say documented the historical Jesus?
Actually, a recent issue of Scientific American examined the issue of whether or not the constants of the universe were really constant. there was some interesting research that suggests there was a slow, subtle shift in the universe’s formative years. The universe wouldn’t disintegrate, in any case. The effect of altered constants might mean more stable elements on the periodic table, or fewer. If carbon couldn’t form (and that would require a shift somewhat greater than one part in a million), then neither could life as we know it and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Your explanation of “GOD” is no explanation at all.
To be more precise, what they proved was that time is a property of the universe itself and that there was no “before” the universe
This is a completely unfounded assertion. Matter arises from nothing all the time on a quantum level. Moreover, there are theoretical “causes” for the universe which do not require a “someone.” Google on “multiveres” for an example.
This entire sentence is complete rubbish. Your phrase “intricate and perfect balance” has no scientific meaning or validity and your “statistics” are spurious and unsupported.
Incorrect. Jesus was not documented by anyone of his time. There exists not a single contemporary reference to Jesus, not a single eyewitness account and almost no extra-Biblical documentation even within century of the crucifixion. There are two non-Christian historians, Josephus and Tacitus who mention Jesus. Contemporary scholars are all but unanimous that Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum is at least a partial, if not total forgery. Tacitus says that Christianity was founded by someone named Christus who was executed by Pilate. That’s basically all he says, and that’s nothing that he wouldn’t have learned by asking the nearest Christian.
I happen to think that some kind of Historical Jesus figure probably existed (although I don’t think he was God or that he did any miracles) but to say that he is a “proven historical figure” is flat out, factually false.
True but irrelevant since you have not shown any of these elements to have any historical reality.
Sorry but no…there are actually ZERO eyewitness reports of anyone seeing a physically resurrected Jesus after his death. No such testimony exists and there is no proof that anyone ever made such a claim. All of the gospel accounts were written by non-witnesses long after the fact. We do not have any extant, eyewitness testimony for any part of the life of Jesus.
Even if all of your steps held up they STILL wouldn’t prove your conclusion. Just because a hypothetical “God” could do something doesn’t mean he did, so your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises.
Your OP has the feel of a drive by witnessing but I hope you’ll come back and read some of this.
'cuase it’s been a while since I’ve seen a target bigger than the OP’s…erm, posterior.
*:::arches arms, remembers what he promised Sheriff Tom. Reaches for whisky (neat of course). Steely-eyed stare all around the the thread/room. Nary a sound::: *
Want a piece of me? Yeah, tawkin’to you!
And with that, local-lingo addled gun-slinger bows out of ludicrous thread.
If your “proof” somwhow did manage to prove the existence of the Christian God it should also “prove” the existence of any other God, gods, myth, animistic spirit, etc. Since the by the same “logic” Athena must have been born out of the head of Zeus. After all “whoever” created the universe should surely also be able to manage that feat, and by your reasoning, must have - since there are multiple “eyewitness reports” of it happening. But if Zeus and Athena both existed, then Christianity is false, since it asserts a single God. Therefore you’ve disproved Christianity, and I’m out the door to sacrifice a goat to Pan.
You’re right Tom, this can be educational. It’s kind of like a game. This post contains 52 logical fallacies and 23 factual errors. Can you find all of them? Careful! Some are hidden!
“Faith” comes from a track record. I have “faith” that my kids will always be late meeting me for lunch. They’ve been late in the past I have “faith” they’ll do it again. “Faith” in the Bible is based on no past experience. It’s just believing that when it says it is the word of God, well then it must be true. That’s just hope, not faith. You can’t define a word with that word and so on ad nauseum…
You know, guys, I’m a little disappointed. tom even asked us not to make this a sharkfest.
Not entirely, but if that’s your contention, I’ll run with it.
As Diogenes said, what Einstein proved was that both time and space are properties of the universe, so there was no when in which there could be a before the universe.
I’m going to need a cite for the first assertion. Even if it were true, that doesn’t mean there has to be a cause, just that there has to be something. You’re not saying “Nothing can happen without a cause”, which would be necessary to logically require a cause.
There are two main things wrong here. Firstly, the anthropic principle. The only reason you are even able to ask how you came to be is that you did come to be. If you’d been different and the universe had been different, then you’d be asking the same question about that tiny probability.
If one of us had been present at the Big Bang (impossible as that is) and someone said that at this exact point of time someone who is exactly like me would be sitting at something exactly like this computer and typing a message exactly like this one in a world exactly like this one, down to the dust molecule drifting down from my computer table, then yes, that would seem impossibly unlikely. But something has to happen. No matter how unlikely, a chain of events does have an outcome.
What you’re doing is asking someone to shuffle a deck, pick a card at random and telling you what it is. Then you say “Are you asking me to believe that you just randomly picked the Nine of Clubs? There’s only one chance in 52 for that to happen! You must have cheated and chosen that card!” You’re just increasing the scale. Some card has to be picked, no matter how unlikely, and the universe had to end up some way.
Secondly, postulating God doesn’t explain anything. Isn’t God intricate and perfect? Isn’t a being capable of doing all you attribute to it also too complex to have been created without an intelligence behind its creation? Don’t we need to ask this question about God, about God’s God, about God’s God’s God and so forth into infinity, without ever actually reaching an answer?
As Diogenes said, this is simply untrue.
I suppose so. Note that the “virgin birth” story is first heard long after Jesus’s death. There are no indications that it was told during his lifetime.
No, as Diogenes said.
As you probably realize by now, I disagree. Furthermore, you seem to be doing two different things here. Points 1, 7 and 8 deal with proving the validity of Christianity. The rest just build a framework and deal with the existence of God, which is of course a different question (although related). Basically, your entire argument hinges on eyewitness reports of post mortem Jesus, which are problematic because these reports (a) don’t exist and (b) would be extremely unreliable if they did exist, like all eyewitness reports.
On one level, that’s simply not true. On another level, it’s misleading, and displays a simplistic understanding of history.
The fact is that we don’t know when the gospel accounts were written. All we have are copies. We also don’t know who wrote them. There are at least three major theories — the Two Source Hypothesis, the Four Source Hypothesis, and the Farrer Hypothesis — and a whole slew of minor theories about the sources of the Gospels. Any one of them could be right, or it could be that some of them are right about some things, or it could be that none of them is right. To state categorically when they were written (e.g., “long after the fact”) is to misstate the facts.
Second, to characterize thirty or forty years as “long after” is to mischaracterize that amount of time for that time period. It is a logical fallacy to apply attributes of modern contemporary media to an ancient zeitgeist. It would be like declaring the walls of Troy to be weak defenses because they could be destroyed by a single M1A1 Abrams battle tank. Two thousand years ago, there was no mass media, no Internet, no instantaneous news appearing suddenly everywhere on earth. A written historical record being compiled and distributed within a couple of decades, particularly given the political distractions like empire building and war, was in fact astoundingly fast.
I know that you won’t do this, but I would appreciate it in the future if you would temper, or at least qualify, some of your categorical declarations with the appropriate disclaimers. You should at least acknowledge the fact that there are quite many people who disagree with you and your sources. What you have done is select sources that satisfy you personally and present them as established fact, leaving people ignorant of the information you are deciding to withhold.
