siegi91

True, but many books are set in places that correspond to real places. That does not entail, logically, that any story depicted in them are true because of this fact only. That would be a little too easy, don’you think so? siegi

This atheist cannot really make a difference between learned and unlearned Christians, since her knowledge of Christianity is still very fragmentary.

The internal evidence qualifies as evidence? That sounds a bit circular Whatever do you mean? siegi

No. The main reason people do not come to Christ is not because they love darkness. It is either because they are not Christians (e.g. Jews), or because they do not buy the evidence you proclaim to have. siegi

Ok, point taken, That will lead us back to the evidence you have. Which is? A book? Please don't tell me it is because Christianity is so peculiar LOL siegi

I am not asking anything. I simply not see why having a different theology, with a loving god, a salvation plan, a god that died, resurrected, whatever you think is so peculiar in your religion, adds anything at all to its plausibility. What is that? siegi

Well, then I have to repeat my question again. And? siegi

And your evidence for that is? The fact that no other religious text does that? I can make up in no time a doctrine that no other religious text has. It is not difficult at all. siegi

Well, you tell me. Is being different and unique something of value? You mentioned it several times, so I expect that you did that for a reason. Which is....? siegi :)

I don't disagree. I am ready to bite the bullet and admit that Christianity is so much different and unique from all other religions. And? siegi

Fair enough. Christianity is unlikely anything else. It is absolutely unique and cannot be equated to any other religion. And? siegi

You say the claims of Christianity are unlike any of the claims done by any other religions. Cool, might be. What are your rational justifications that being different adds a iota to the plausibility of the claim? I see none. If I did see one, I would simply declare a new religion that is vastly different from all other religions (not difficult) and claim that it must be true, because of that. It is obvious. that it is a non sequitur. So, do you have better evidence than that? siegi

Well, of course I require evidence. Everybody would. You are making strong claims concerning the Universe, what we should believe (or else...), behave, etc. And sorry, your word and what is written in a book is not sufficient. Consider my position. I am a young atheist that works in the field of theoretical physics. As such, I meet a lot of people of different cultures and creeds. Atheists, recently also Christians (themselves with many different beliefs concerning evolution hell, death penalty, LBGT issues...), Hindus, Muslims, etc. So, who should I even consider if I do not have external evidence to confirm them? Throw some dice? Believe in the one with the hottest hell? What? siegi

"It would be pretty dumb if me to suggest you debate with a book. You seem to be interested in the topic, so I’m offering a resource for you from someone more conversant on the topic than me." Ok, point taken. You look honest and I might consider reading that. I am just used to people not finding better rebuttals than spam me with youtube links and such. By the way, the name is not new to me, so I cannot exclude that I have already read that. I read so much that I am not sure anymore of what I already read and whatnot. But I usually give preference to authors who do not agree with me, so maybe I already read that. But if he is like WL Craig, then I do not expect much more than self referential proof based only in one book. Which is obvious, since there is no extra biblical evidence of any resurrection at all. "Even though they spent 3 years with Jesus, I suspect they still expected that Jesus would bring an end to Jewish oppression and establish a kingdom in earth. They didn’t understand the impact of Jesus’s life and teaching until after His death and resurrection." Jesus said very clearly that He will be betrayed, killed and, last but not least, that He will return on the third day. So, I am not sure where the source of their skepticism comes from. Assuming they were rational. I like to think that this is just the product of some author that favored emotions vs. logical consistency, but that is just me. Well, my explanation would pass the Hume test though siegi

Yet, it does not say anything about a resurrection. So, my case stands. Apart from the Bible, there is no evidence of any resurrection. Persecution, imprisonment, death, maybe. But these are things that happen, especially in the Roman Empire, and do not require, unlike resurrections, special evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which, it seems, is to be found only in one book, with an agenda anyway. And sorry, I do not find indirect evidence convincing. Explosion of Christianity? Yes, but that was yesterday. Here in Germany Christianity is evaporating and Islam is exploding. Does that increase the plausibility of Allah? Hardly. In North Europe things are even worse. I would say the upper half of Europe will be totally de-christianized in a few generations. In Scandinavia, for instance, the Christian religion has the same exact status as things like Copyism (a new religion that consider copying files a sacred act). So, something for your missionaries (I promise we will not use arrows to keep them out). I mean it, I am not a fan of Islam, to put it mildly. And I am open minded. But open minded does not mean believing, or even considering, things whose only evidence is in a book that wants to advertise a certain creed anyway. That is, incidentally, the complain I receive when I show skepticism about things like astrology or homeopathy. Show me something more solid evidence, and I will be in. siegi

Yes, but let us recap the preconditions: 1) Jesus announced during His ministry that He will be betrayed, that He will be convicted, killed and that He will return on the third day. That is, according to my information, in the NT. So, if the 12 did not expect His death, it follows logically that they thought He lied, or just was sort in a bad mood. 2) He did not only announced that, but He precisely predicted what would happen. Including Peter/Simon denying Him when asked by the authorities. Together with other precise predictions involving roosters and such. 3) Jesus performed, during His ministry, several miracles that should have provided enough evidence of His divine status 4) At the time of His death, unbelievable things happened. Earthquakes, eclipses, and a multitude of dead saints raising from their tombs and wandering round town. That thing alone should have made it apparent that resurrections are possible (the saints just did that), and that the master was really what he claimed to be. So. what happens instead? The 12 turn into rational skeptics overnight. I don't know you, but if I had been one of them I would have thought: wait a minute, the master anticipated everything with exact precision, and look what happened at His death. So, isn't that maybe likely that what He said about the third day will also happen? I would have probably called the Roman Empire equivalent of the CNN (or Fox) to just wait outside His tomb to get the event live. But no. They were surprised and skeptical at the start, instead. It is quite obvious that this does not compute. siegi

Tacitus does not say anything here about evidence of a resurrection of any kind. Unless I am blind. Unless you think that reporting persecution of believers of X resurrection entails that X resurrected, which is an obvious non sequitur. Therefore, I am not sure what your point is. And I am not debating books. I am debating people who are quoting books or other documents. Like you did just now. That of course, does not entail that I will not read those books. siegi

I don't debate books. Was that evidence collected in the same book? I mean, do you have extra biblical evidence that there was a resurrection of any kind? Another question concerning the NT. Why were the 12 surprised (and a bit skeptical) soon after hearing from the ladies that He has risen? That is something I really do not understand and let me think that the depiction of those events does not correspond to actual reality. siegi

Do you think that dying for belief X, makes X even slightly more plausible? I ask because I heard of a group of people who committed collective suicide, including women and children, because they firmly believed that an alien starship hiding behind a comet would pick their souls up. siegi

Something like the black monolith in 2001 a Space Odyssey? An impulse to initiate intelligence, and the ability to kill (sin) that comes with it? siegi

What? really? I am shocked

"Which do you believe is the “simpler” explanation for the universe - it came to be, with all of the required physical constants, on its own, or that Someone actually created the universe?" If I had that, I would be famous. You seem to address the fine tuning argument here. I would be thrilled to debate this with you. But I have a question: would that prove that Jesus is true or that only a general fine tuner is true? In case of the latter, why don't you go straight to the evidence that justifies your particular belief in the Christian faith and save yourself the hassle to discuss physics and such? "Of course, I wouldn’t expect an atheist to know the Bible intimately, but I am guessing you know it better than most atheists. The Book of His Works that Bacon referred to is the natural world we can see all around us. He believed it was important to be aware of both the Bible and the natural world. And you know quite a bit about that!" Well, I heard atheists know more know about religion than religious people. Not me. I am an ignoramus when it comes to metaphysical beliefs. But I am a physicist, and you seem to indicate that I should know the Bible in order to come up with viable theories. Is that so? : siegi

So, despite accepting evolution and such, you believe that there were at a certain point in time, two individuals representing homo sapiens that had no homo sapiens parents. Or with parents that, for some reasons, did not deserve to have an immortal soul. Or where they Sahelanthropuses? What do you think? I am sure you realize that this idea makes no sense in the framework of human evolution. At least according to current evidence. But then I would like to ask what method you use to select what counts for evidence an what not.

Of course it has metaphysical relevance. How are your going to understand my metaphysical gems, if I mess up this thing? siegi :)

Yes, but that assumes that you give priority to what you read in a book just because...it is written on that book. But what logical reason do you have to do that? Sieglinde