toldailytopic: What are the most persuasive evidences that God exists?

[Town Heretic]

Did he not challenge the evidence of the resurrection?

Just being an atheist does that. But, again, denying the historical fact of Jesus is so counter intuitive and against the grain of reasonable consideration (the meat of some on the brink of publish or perish extinction or rabid anti theistic tendency) that it is evidence for either a willingness to believe any point that sustains disbelief or a dedication to it. Neither speaks to an interest in more than muddling, as I see it.

The power of God that leads men to salvation does not come through debating science or philosophy, or human wisdom, but through the Gospel and the Gospel alone.

I've seen people moved by reason toward God, but this isn't arguing the gospel; this is arguing the foundational truth of that witness. Absent a camcorder or a number of corroborating documents outside of those gathered in witness, what do you believe is going to happen?

If we debate evolution to try and convince the lost that God is the source of all life, we destroy God's evidence in favor of our own.

I think the only purely rational argument for God is context and self serving superiority in that particular. Else, it's about relation and conviction. I don't see this leading there for the reasons stated. But if you think it's potentially fruitful I'm not going to stand in your or anyone's way. Good luck with it.

 

[Son of Jack]

Just being an atheist does that. But, again, denying the historical fact of Jesus is so counter intuitive and against the grain of reasonable consideration (the meat of some on the brink of publish or perish extinction or rabid anti theistic tendency) that it is evidence for either a willingness to believe any point that sustains disbelief or a dedication to it. Neither speaks to an interest in more than muddling, as I see it.

Okay, I definitely think we are basically on the same page. N.T. Wright makes a similar point in Surprised by Hope. The one who desires to remain a skeptic will remain one in the face of wholly reasonable and defensible arguments and explanations.

 

[Ted L Glines]

Not for those who wrote about it in the 50 years that followed the event. Are you claiming that the Holocaust will be in doubt 2000 years from now, because everyone who wrote about it 50 years later are to be counted as suspect?

You know 100 years is a very short amount of time. I've lived over half that amount of time, and it passed rather quickly. 2000 years is only 20 of those time periods. Do you doubt the assassination of Julius Caesar or his existence?

No one doubts the assassination of Julius Caesar or his existence. It's right there in our history book. But the history book is not the center of a controversial rage-storm and no one gives a hoot about Julius. What we are seeing in the Jesus fracus is about emotion and faith vs. emotion and non-faith. There can never be a winner because both sides live for the debate.

 

[Granite]

But, again, denying the historical fact of Jesus is so counter intuitive and against the grain of reasonable consideration (the meat of some on the brink of publish or perish extinction or rabid anti theistic tendency) that it is evidence for either a willingness to believe any point that sustains disbelief or a dedication to it.

Uh, not really. There's simply little evidence for his historical reality. It is not unreasonable for one to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist and the Jesus as we know him today is an combination of several different characters and invention.

 

[Nihilo]

Uh, not really. There's simply little evidence for his historical reality. It is not unreasonable for one to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist and the Jesus as we know him today is an combination of several different characters and invention.

His parables. Whether it was one man (Him), or one woman, a group of men or women or both, a family, a town, some scholars...a carpenter...fishermen...somebody created them. His parables are in and of themselves miraculous; they are spot-on reflections of God Most High. They are like God Most High's personal signet ring. They came from Him. Whoever created the parables attributed to the Lord Jesus Christ is also therefore clearly from God Most High.

 

[Town Heretic]

Uh, not really. There's simply little evidence for his historical reality.

Horsefeathers. All we have is evidence, both of the literal sort and logically verifiable, rational extension of known and indisputable fact relating to the existence, growth and nature of Christian claims within the life in being of those who knew Jesus, in places where those with an agenda and desire to see the fledgling religion stamped out would have had little problem contesting it were its central character non existent. And that's absent the witness of early church fathers or the testimony of Paul.

It is not unreasonable for one to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist and the Jesus as we know him today is an combination of several different characters and invention.

It's entirely unreasonable. Not even the Jewish leaders of his time and the expanding, founding period made that claim. And you know why they didn't? Because it would have been crazy to have attempted it with people who knew him, his family, etc. You're buying into a creative effort sans legs.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Well I read through the thread hoping to find something interesting but came up wanting. Psychological and metaphysical arguments don't really do it for me.
I'm a here and now kinda guy. What is relevant today that is a convincing, rational evidence of God's existence?

 

[some other dude]

 

[Andrew Lee]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 9th, 2011 11:53 AM

toldailytopic: What are the most persuasive evidences that God exists?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Math. Run, or commision the running of Math, where the edict is "Time is Consciousness" as per the writting of Fred Alan Wolf in [U]Mind, Consciousnessness, and Quantum Physics [/U]. New York: Macmillan, 1984.

 

[Cleekster]

Horsefeathers. All we have is evidence, both of the literal sort and logically verifiable, rational extension of known and indisputable fact relating to the existence, growth and nature of Christian claims within the life in being of those who knew Jesus, in places where those with an agenda and desire to see the fledgling religion stamped out would have had little problem contesting it were its central character non existent. And that's absent the witness of early church fathers or the testimony of Paul.

The only people with an agenda was the Catholic Church who eradicated anyone who opposed the Catholic veiwpoint including the Jewish Christian Church whose Bishops were all descendants of Jesus's family.....the Papacy was a LITERAL Monarchy at one point....if you TRULY believed in the resurrection temporal power would be meaningless....yet the church even in it's own decline refuses to give up what little temporal power it still wields.

Not trying to be Anti-Catholic here just stating the facts as i see them.

 

[kmoney]

What's going on here? I didn't say anything about whether or not anyone finds this compelling. My focus was on the point of defending a historical Jesus when it has no power to move the person making it in any substantive way. That is, if you were to provide a Roman birth certificate and an account of his crucifixion it wouldn't establish the argument of divinity or necessarily move the atheist making the side bar advance, given his objection isn't honestly rooted in the lack of historical record. :mmph:

I tend to think that if someone believes in the historical figure of Jesus they'll be more likely to believe the other stuff. :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

I tend to think that if someone believes in the historical figure of Jesus they'll be more likely to believe the other stuff. :idunno:

Where I'd say if you're at all invested in that sort of denial you're so far from the ballpark there isn't a bus line that will drop you near. lain:

And Cleekster, the early church, which I don't count as Catholic, being some part removed from the tomes/dogma to follow, was mostly trying to keep from being eradicated. So I'd say your point is off the chronological mark in foundation and fails to address my point else.

 

[kmoney]

Where I'd say if you're at all invested in that sort of denial you're so far from the ballpark there isn't a bus line that will drop you near. lain:

Yeah, I guess a lot of people do become Christians without believing he existed at all. lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

Yeah, I guess a lot of people do become Christians without believing he existed at all. lain:

Rather, I doubt anyone willing to buy into speculation of that sort is the sort who will be remotely approachable on the larger point.

 

[kmoney]

Rather, I doubt anyone willing to buy into speculation of that sort is the sort who will be remotely approachable on the larger point.

You can doubt that. It might even be a reasonable doubt. I don't see that as a reason to avoid discussion on the topic.

 

[some other dude]

Are you guys even arguing about the same thing, or is this just another case of Town arguing for the sake of arguing? :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

You can doubt that. It might even be a reasonable doubt. I don't see that as a reason to avoid discussion on the topic.

If it's a reasonable doubt then it's reasonable to refrain from engaging, which has a very different tenor from your choice of usage. In any event, I only set out my mind on the matter. Hardly a proscription.

 

[some other dude]

:doh:

 

[keypurr]

Most of you are overlookiing an important thing.
The question was is there a God. Lets say there is, I believe in one, now can you prove that the Bible of any other holy book represents God? Most assume that the Bible is God's work but can they prove it.
My own experience stems from the study of prophecy, it just makes to much sense not to be of divine origin. My line of reason has been crossed, has yours? But there is no way to prove it. Yet we discuss our differances because of what each of us sees in this book. This makes me wonder why translators differ so much. What is real truth.

I believe in one God and I believe that the scriptures can bring me to an understanding of that God. BUT I CAN'T PROVE IT. That is where faith come in.

Ponder in peace my friends.

 

[eameece]

"Persuasiveness" is ambiguous. There's "subjectively persuasive," that is to say, what persuades the mind of the subject, and then there's "objectively persuasive," what in the object lends certitude to the mind. Religious experience may be subjectively persuasive, but it's not objectively so. My arguments may or may not be subjectively persuasive, but I think that they are objectively so.

Certitude in the mind is not less subjective or objective, than a religious experience. A religious experience is not personal, but transcendent. It is equal to "God's experience of himself" that was mentioned.