Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

No corpse was ever found, but there were hundreds of sightings of the risen Jesus.

You mean somebody wrote a story in which hundreds of sightings were claimed. The only first hand record of a sighting that exists is Paul's account of his vision - or possibly hallucination.

[Maeght]

The exponential expansion of the Christian faith (despite intense persecution) after the resurrection would never have happened if it was built upon a lie.  Would the first disciples have sacrificed their lives for the sake of a lie?

You have said this before but never addressed the responses given.

Firstly, there is no evidence of intense persecution of Christians in the early days. Secondly, there is also little evidence that the first disciples sacrificed their lives for the 'the sake of a lie'. Two or three may have been executed but we don't know that were due to their beliefs or for other reasons. Many of the disciples are never heard of again after the death of Jesus and may have lived long, peaceful olives for all we know. Thirdly, they may have been mistaken rather than lying. They may have firmly believed that they had encountered the rising Jesus but may have been wrong. Finally, the gospels were written down decades after the events and what is recorded in them may not have actually happened.

You just seem to accept everything written in the Bible and in Church tradition as being accurate.

[Alan Burns]

Wow - you really are credulous, and incredibly naive, if that is the best you can do.

That some were prepared to die for their 'cause' may say something about them but it says nothing about the credibility of their cause: were it otherwise then we would be celebrating the sincerity of every suicide bomber? Or is it only Christian martyrs that we should admire?

Suicide bombers deliberately took their own lives along with those of innocent victims.
The Christian martyrs did not choose to die - they were condemned to death for their religious beliefs.

[Alan Burns]

You have said this before but never addressed the responses given.

Firstly, there is no evidence of intense persecution of Christians in the early days. Secondly, there is also little evidence that the first disciples sacrificed their lives for the 'the sake of a lie'. Two or three may have been executed but we don't know that were due to their beliefs or for other reasons. Many of the disciples are never heard of again after the death of Jesus and may have lived long, peaceful olives for all we know. Thirdly, they may have been mistaken rather than lying. They may have firmly believed that they had encountered the rising Jesus but may have been wrong. Finally, the gospels were written down decades after the events and what is recorded in them may not have actually happened.

Your comments are based on somewhat biased speculation with what I perceive to be the intention of casting doubt on the validity of the scriptures.  My faith is firmly grounded in a personal relationship with my Lord and Saviour.

[Nearly Sane]

Your comments are based on somewhat biased speculation with what I perceive to be the intention of casting doubt on the validity of the scriptures.  My faith is firmly grounded in a personal relationship with my Lord and Saviour.

That reads like a complete non sequitur to the post you replied to.

[Outrider]

It is demonstrated by every thought, word or deed I consciously choose to make of my own free will.

So asserted, not demonstrated.

The materialistic alternative would be that my conscious awareness is merely a window on what has already been determined by the laws of physics and chemistry acting on material elements.

Yes. You say that like it's an argument, but it's just a description. If you want to suggest that's problematic you have to show why, and 'but I don't like the implications' isn't a reason.

O.

[Gordon]

Suicide bombers deliberately took their own lives along with those of innocent victims.
The Christian martyrs did not choose to die - they were condemned to death for their religious beliefs.

So you don't think that suicide bombers were accepting of death in support of their cause? 

[Gordon]

Your comments are based on somewhat biased speculation with what I perceive to be the intention of casting doubt on the validity of the scriptures.  My faith is firmly grounded in a personal relationship with my Lord and Saviour.

Since these 'scriptures' have little or no provenance then doubt regarding their validity is the only sensible and reasonable position that makes any sense.

[torridon]

It is demonstrated by every thought, word or deed I consciously choose to make of my own free will.  The materialistic alternative would be that my conscious awareness is merely a window on what has already been determined by the laws of physics and chemistry acting on material elements.

However, every thing you say, do, or write on here does have prior causes that led to those.words  You are just in denial. Were this not the case then your posts on here for instance would be random unintelligble nonsense

Oh, hang on a minute ...

[Maeght]

Your comments are based on somewhat biased speculation with what I perceive to be the intention of casting doubt on the validity of the scriptures.  My faith is firmly grounded in a personal relationship with my Lord and Saviour.

It isn't speculation. I am pointing out the fact that your claims have no actual supporting evidence for them. They are claims made in the Bible and by church tradition only.  You keep using those claims to support your position so it is legitimate to question the basis of your claims. Because you have a belief in God & Jesus you accept what is written as fact. I don't have that faith and so question that.

[Maeght]

Suicide bombers deliberately took their own lives along with those of innocent victims.
The Christian martyrs did not choose to die - they were condemned to death for their religious beliefs.

There is little or no evidence for most of Christian martyrs and we have no idea whether those who did die were given the opportunity to recant their faith or if they were actually killed for their beliefs.

I think Peter and Paul sincerely believed and died believing in the risen Jesus. There is a case to be made for a couple of others. Paul talked about a vision. I don't think either Peter or Paul were lying but they believed they had seen the risen Jesus in some form or another. Because they believed they did doesn't mean they did.

[Alan Burns]

So asserted, not demonstrated.

My ability to consciously assert demonstrates the reality of my gift of free will.

Yes. You say that like it's an argument, but it's just a description. If you want to suggest that's problematic you have to show why, and 'but I don't like the implications' isn't a reason.

It is not that I do not like the implications.
I know that I have conscious control enabled within my conscious awareness.  This is the reality which is denied by any materialistic attempt to explain what comprises my conscious awareness and how it works.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What method other than reason and evidence would you propose to forge a path from subjective opinion to objective fact?

I'm not sure I am proposing such a path. Whether reason, on it's own, can form a path to what you are terming 'objective fact' I'm not so sure. Reason and science have not always been happy bedfellows vis the multiverse argument and the differences between French philosophical reasoning and British Empiricism.

In any case, since people on this forum have made apparent an atheism shored up by the dispensing of the Principle of sufficient reason, maybe you should be answering the question.

[Outrider]

My ability to consciously assert demonstrates the reality of my gift of free will.

No, you're demonstrating the phenomena that we're all discussing, you're failing in any way to demonstrate that it's causatively because of the underlying features that you posit.

It is not that I do not like the implications.

That's not how it comes across.

I know that I have conscious control enabled within my conscious awareness.

How? How do you 'know'? You believe, quite strongly it seems, but you haven't demonstrated any reason to think that you can justify elevating that belief to a sense of knowledge. You have no basis for your contention other than that you don't like the alternative.

This is the reality which is denied by any materialistic attempt to explain what comprises my conscious awareness and how it works.

Even if you could somehow disprove the current materialistic model, or even all potential materialistic models, that still only leaves your notion as a possibility, it has not validation whatsoever.

O.

[jeremyp]

My ability to consciously assert demonstrates the reality of my gift of free will.

Nope. Why do you think that being able to assert things means you have free will?

[Stranger]

My ability to consciously assert demonstrates the reality of my gift of free will.

Your assertions could easily be entirely due to the past (or with some element of randomness), i.e nature, nurture, and experience.

You can't possibly demonstrate that they're not. Stop lying.

I know that I have conscious control enabled within my conscious awareness.

No you don't. You couldn't possibly know. Your certainty could easily be the result of nature, nurture, and your experience up to the moment you typed this.

Still waiting for the "simple logical deduction" you said you had.

Where is it? Were you just lying?

[Alan Burns]

A very powerful witness - hard to argue with this one
please watch it to the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upTofuSIcVM

[Alan Burns]

So you don't think that suicide bombers were accepting of death in support of their cause?

Just view the link I just gave

[Stranger]

A very powerful witness - hard to argue with this one
please watch it to the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upTofuSIcVM

Conversion stories are two a penny and not confined to Christianity. Its evidential value is zero. Not sure what you meant by watching to the end. The end was a cringe-worthy bit of preaching. Many have been there, prayed the prayer, got nothing, or later found out that they'd been deceiving themselves and escaped.

[Outrider]

A very powerful witness - hard to argue with this one
please watch it to the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upTofuSIcVM

Powerful? Someone with a tendency to believe unsubstantiated tales switches which version of an unsubstantiated tale he chooses to claim is true - that's not powerful, that's a cultural milieu away from a psychiatric diagnosis.

If he'd switched from 'djinn giving him messages' to 'speaking for the fae folk' we'd be sectioning him.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not sure I am proposing such a path.

Then why would you expect anyone to take your faith claims seriously?

Whether reason, on it's own, can form a path to what you are terming 'objective fact' I'm not so sure.

Why not? You presumably accept the idea of objective facts. What method then other than the application of reason would you propose to identify them?

Reason and science have not always been happy bedfellows vis the multiverse argument and the differences between French philosophical reasoning and British Empiricism.

Relevance?

In any case, since people on this forum have made apparent an atheism shored up by the dispensing of the Principle of sufficient reason, maybe you should be answering the question.

Gibberish. You’re the one making the faith claims – it’s your job therefore to find justifications for anyone else to take them seriously. 

[Gordon]

Just view the link I just gave

Did that - it's nauseating nonsense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just view the link I just gave

Why? It's just an anecdote from someone as credulous as you are followed by some mindless preaching. So what? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The exponential expansion of the Christian faith (despite intense persecution) after the resurrection would never have happened if it was built upon a lie.  Would the first disciples have sacrificed their lives for the sake of a lie?

You've tried this wrongheaded thinking several times in the past, and each time been corrected on it. You've consistently just ignored the correction you're given, and have now repeated exactly the same mistake here.

Why such dishonest behaviour? 

[Outrider]

The exponential expansion of the Christian faith (despite intense persecution) after the resurrection would never have happened if it was built upon a lie.

You mean like the expansion of Islam (quicker than Christianity, more widely persecuted for some time than the Christians)? Or like the expansion of Hinduism? Or Buddhism? They can't all be true, so it's demonstrable that expansion in the face of persecution is possible built on a faulty premise.

Would the first disciples have sacrificed their lives for the sake of a lie?

If we can trust the stories... because they believed the lie. Being a martyr doesn't give you miraculous lie-detection powers, they are just as fallible as anyone else. One man's saint is another man's delusion fool.

O.